Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

County Council Roads

Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will consider designating as trunk roads those county council roads which are essential for industrial or tourist development.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Motorways and trunk roads are designated because of their importance for long-distance through traffic. It would not be appropriate to add to the network on the grounds suggested.

Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of Clwyd county council's diligence in providing proper access roads to important industrial developments such as Kinmell park estate and vital tourist areas such as Rhyl and Prestatyn, will my hon. Friend reconsider whether there should be an extension of the powers of the Welsh Office, which, in this respect, have been satisfactorily carried out?

Mr. Roberts: I understand that Clwyd county council has plans to improve the A525 between the A55 and Rhyl and Prestatyn. The priority that it gives to the scheme is a matter for the council. We recently wrote to the local

authority agreeing to the provision of white on brown tourism signs at the A55-A525 junction. A meeting will be held shortly to finalise the wording and symbols to be used.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister reconsider the situation vis-a-vis the A44, which we in mid-Wales would like to see designated as a trunk road? I understand that one of the formulae applied involves the volume of traffic, which inevitably is light. None the less, it is a very important link road. Will the Welsh Office negotiate with the Secretary of State for Transport on that issue?

Mr. Roberts: We have examined the argument for trunking the A44 between Rhayader and the English border. The hon. Gentleman is quite right about this being related to the volume of traffic. The adjoining length of road in England is not trunked. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer)? To realise the full potential of the A55 and the Government's massive investment of £160 million in dualling it, it is essential that link roads are constructed between the expressway and industrial estates such as the Delyn enterprise zone and Greenfield business park. Contrary to what the Minister has said, Clwyd county council shows no sign of developing such a link road strategy. Will my hon. Friend take a leaf out of the book of the previous Secretary of State for Wales, who was prepared to consider designating short link roads as trunk roads?

Mr. Roberts: I agree that those roads are important in order to derive the best possible benefit from trunk roads such as the A55. However, I must stress once again that the local highway authority has responsibility for those roads.

Rating Reform

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will be taking to help Welsh local authorities in defraying the administrative costs of implementing the community charge.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The Government have made it clear that additional resources will be made available to help local authorities with the extra capital and revenue costs of setting up the new system. We are discussing those matters with the associations.

Mr. Murphy: Is the Minister aware that his Conservative colleague, the chairman of the Association of District Councils in Britain as a whole, recently visited Cardiff and told Welsh local authorities that the cost of implementing the poll tax would be £10 million and that it would cost £17 million to run? That is far in excess of the amount that the Government originally intended. Does he agree that that is yet another example of an unnecessary burden on the Welsh people?

Mr. Grist: We do not have to go to an English Conservative, because the Committee of Welsh District Councils is looking into the matter, although we do not expect to have its estimates until next month. The Government have commissioned a firm of management consultants to survey a sample of local authorities in England and Wales to report on the cost of implementation and operation to assist us in our considerations. That report is due soon.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Will my hon. Friend make every effort to arrange for the tightest controls lest local councils use the community charge as an excuse for a spending spree? Surely that much simpler and fairer tax will involve less cost per person because it will not involve the complex calculations for which the anachronistic formula for rates presently calls.

Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend is right. Costs will be incurred in setting up the system, but once it is running it will not be more expensive than the present one.

Mr. Flynn: The Minister says that he does not need an English Conservative to make his calculations. It is notable that in Newport, East the Tory party turned to English Conservatives to ride their candidates twice in constituency elections. It is one of those Conservatives who has given us these figures.
Can the Minister tell the House which local authorities will take part in the Welsh estimate? Does he realise that there will be an enormous increase in the burden of work? It has been estimated that in one county council the number of accounts will increase from 140,000 to 375,000, that the number paying by instalments will increase ninefold, that the number of distress warrants will increase tenfold, and that the number of payments will increase from 500,000 to 3·5 million. Is it not time for Welsh Office Ministers to protect Wales from this Tory tax, which is unfair and unnecessary?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is yet again using guesstimates in an attempt to scare people away from what will be a thoroughly fair and easily understood tax. The Opposition are clearly afraid of it because it will show up the wasteful expenditure for which so many members of the Labour party are guilty in local government.

Welsh Rivers Authority

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received pressing for a Welsh rivers authority; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Grist: The Government's consultation paper proposing a National Rivers Authority was published in July 1987. Nine of the 51 responses received in Wales suggested a separate authority for Wales.

Mr. Davies: Given that the Secretary of State is a party to the appointment of Lord Crickhowell as chairman of the National Rivers Authority, I am surprised that he did not answer my question. Nevertheless, how can the public have confidence in the integrity and independence of Lord Crickhowell, who is a paid representative of the multinational mining corporation Rio-Tinto-Zinc, in his capacity of chairman of the National Rivers Authority? Given also that the incidence of river pollution is now at a record level of 2,500 cases annually, only one in 28 of which results in prosecution, is not Lord Crickhowell just a Tory ex-politician—a Tory placeman—appointed to preside over the lowering of water quality standards in Wales?

Mr. Grist: Lowering standards have been well illustrated by the hon. Gentleman's approach this afternoon. I thought that his was a disgraceful contribution.
My noble Friend Lord Crickhowell has made a notable and extremely beneficent contribution to Welsh affairs. Opposition Members should welcome the fact that a person in his position, with his love and knowledge of Wales, is there to protect our interests.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not a fact that legislation governing the purity of water is still in force and has in no way been altered? Is it not a fact also that where there has been an increase in pollution, it is largely due to new treatments of agricultural land, and that a major step is now being taken to improve matters in that respect?

Mr. Grist: As is so often the case, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Valleys Initiative

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Valleys initiative.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): I have had the benefit of consultations with the local authorities, the health authorities, housing associations, enterprise agencies, the Wales Tourist Board, a number of voluntary organisations, the CBI, the TUC, and a range of commercial and industrial firms. A range of constructive and positive proposals have been made, all of which are being fully assessed and considered, I will announce a positive plan of action when those considerations have been completed.

Mr. Livsey: When does the Secretary of State hope to announce that initiative, which has been under consideration for some time? Can he give an assurance that there will be new money on the table—not money recycled from elsewhere in the Welsh Office budget—for the initiative, which I welcome?

Mr. Walker: I have always stated that I will make an announcement as soon as the consultation is complete and I have reached conclusions. The programme will affect the Valleys for some years to come, and it is important that the document is carefully constructed. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed with the way in which public expenditure is used to benefit the Valleys.

Mr. Foot: We hope that the Secretary of State will look fully at all the propositions put to him from the Valley towns, and if he takes a bit longer to consider all the representations, none of us can complain. Will he, however, give us an absolute assurance that when he publishes the scheme he will also publish all the financial details, comparing how much is to be spent in the next three or four years in detail with what has been spent over recent years and also with what we have lost in regional aid over that period—which we trust will be refunded in the next two or three years?

Mr. Walker: I should be delighted to publish comparisons—particularly in most of the spheres that affect the Valleys—with the record of the Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

Dr. Thomas: We have been reading carefully the book that the right hon. Gentleman published recently and noting the kind of partnership that he envisages between the public sector and private capital. What amount of commercial capital does he expect to participate in the Valleys initiative? Is he hopeful that the area will be scheduled for an integrated operations programme for the European Community, which will add substantially to the funds made available?

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, plans connected with the European Commission are a matter for discussion and detailed negotiation.
As for our relationship with the private sector, I have engaged in many consultations because a range of industries are potential investors in the Valleys in major commercial enterprises and capital investment. The results of those negotiations have been very heartwarming.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that at least his initiative will include sufficient money to cover the serious under-funding of the health services in our Valley communities, and to deal with the backlog of applications for repair and improvement grants caused by the fact that a large number of individual home owners have been waiting for up to four years for such grants?

Mr. Walker: The Health Service will always face great demands. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the amount now being spent on the Health Service is a substantial improvement, by any comparison, on the amount being spent some years ago. Similarly, a Government who have spent more in one year than the previous Labour Government spent in five years are likely to have a good record on house improvements.

Mr. Alan Williams: Can we at least have some answers from the Secretary of State? Is it not time to end the cruelties, or is it just dither on the right hon. Gentleman's part? Does he realise that he has trailed this so often and for so long that it is in danger of becoming a rather sad parliamentary joke? Will he confirm that the article in the

Western Mail on 17 March was based on authorised Welsh Office briefing? If not, how does he account for the detailed quotations in it? If it was, does he stand by the figure of £900 million that it quoted?
Finally—this is an important point—when it is eventually announced—f it is—may we have a guarantee that it will be announced first in this Chamber?

Mr. Walker: I shall certainly make an announcement in the Chamber, although I shall also be simultaneously making announcements in the Valleys. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that.
The only publicity of any scale that has built up about the Valleys initiative is the constant neurosis of the right hon. Gentleman, who mentions it in almost every speech. I am sure that he will be delighted if it is a programme of action with substantial results. We look forward to seeing his smiling face rejoicing at such a programme.

Clywd Structure Plan

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from Clwyd county council on proposed changes in the Clwyd structure plan; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend has received no such representations.

Mr. Jones: When the Secretary of State receives representations, will he take into account the needs of the west and south of Clwyd? I am afraid that the county council is not taking any account of the needs of the Vale of Clwyd in its structure plan, and is likely to create a dormitory area for Chester and Deeside in the west of the county.

Mr. Grist: When the structure plan alterations are finally submitted to my right hon. Friend, careful note will be taken of all representations.

Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend also take note of the representations that he will receive from north-east Wales concerning its place in the Clwyd structure plan and the complete lack of any action by Clwyd county council to help the industrial development of that part of Clwyd? It is causing great concern in Delwyn borough council and also in the borough council in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). We need roads, as was mentioned earlier today. It is not good enough for the Welsh Office to abdicate its responsibilities and transfer them to the county. The Welsh Office is doing nothing.

Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend's support for his constituents and for the people of Clwyd is very well known, and he has well exemplified it this afternoon.

Council House Sales

Mr. Chris Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many council houses and flats have been sold to tenants in Wales since May 1979 under (a) the right to buy and (b) voluntary provisions.

Mr. Grist: 55,246 council houses and flats have been sold to tenants in Wales under the right to buy. The equivalent figure for voluntary sales is 5,082.

Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a great contribution to the liberation of the working man? What hope does he have that this liberation will be extended to those who live in hard-to-sell flats?

Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the greatest distribution of capital to working people that any hon. Member could have imagined. It was unimaginable by the Labour party, which purports to represent working people. My hon. Friend will be aware of the extra discount for flats that has recently been made available to encourage such sales.

Mr. Coleman: We note with interest the Minister's answer, but hon. Members with Welsh constituencies will want to know how many people in Wales were registered as homeless in 1979, compared with the present figure. When will the receipts from the sales of council houses in Wales be applied to resolving the problem of homelessness amongst our people?

Mr. Grist: The number of registered homeless in 1979 was 4,676. In 1987 the number was 5,300. As I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, that does not show great movement.

Sir Anthony Meyer: As the great majority of those who were interested in buying their council houses under the previous scheme have done so, resulting in immense benefits for them, is the time not coming for another great leap forward in the extension of home ownership?

Mr. Grist: I think that my hon. Friend may not have noticed the additional impetus of the higher discount that has recently been allowed. Nevertheless, he is quite right. We are looking at further ways of spreading home ownership.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that one of the causes of tension in rural Wales, in areas such as Gwynedd, is the inability of local people to compete on the open market to buy houses and the reduction in the stock of council houses for letting to them? In these circumstances, will he consider whether it is possible to make a much greater financial allocation that would allow district councils to buy houses from the private sector to let to those who cannot afford to buy them? Will he also look at the possibility of giving to those who want to buy council houses, but who are uncertain as to their job prospects in areas of high unemployment, some guarantee that they will be able to revert to renting accommodation from the local council if they have to foreclose on their mortgages?

Mr. Grist: I take note of the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. On the first part of his question, he may be interested to know that we shall be introducing such a measure in the current Housing Bill, which I think he will find helpful.

Mr. Roy Hughes: When will the Government recognise that millions of pounds are lying dormant from the sale of council properties? Is it not a fact that under this Government public expenditure on housing has shown a marked decline compared with that under the previous Labour Government? What about our Valley communities, where thousands of houses are now just about beyond repair? Is it not a fact that homelessness is at record levels in Wales? Mortgage repossessions are seven times higher now than they were in 1979. The hon.

Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) represents an English constituency, so perhaps he is not too conversant with our problems in Wales. Is it not time that the Government realised that Welsh housing has reached crisis point?

Mr. Grist: It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman should talk about the decline of housing in Wales when the Labour party saw that decline but did not lift a finger to do anything about it. I shall remind him of the figures. During the time that the Labour Government were in office expenditure on private housing renovation was £54 million a year. Under this Government it is £414 million. Expenditure on public housing renovation under the Labour Government was £86 million a year. Under this Government it is £339 million a year. We have saved the housing stock, including houses owned in many cases by those who elect Opposition Members.
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that Cynon valley council has just produced its housing strategy. In paragraph 29 it encapsulates its new policy, and the first point that it makes is that:
New Council houses be built only in exceptional circumstances.
That is the change.

Briefing Policy

Mr. John: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on briefing of outside organisations by officials of his Department.

Mr. Peter Walker: The response to requests for outside briefing depends upon the nature of the briefing required. The main objective is to provided factual background and to preserve the neutrality of the Civil Service.

Mr. John: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report—which no doubt is accurate—in the Western Mail of 28 April, in which Mr. John Davies, the under-secretary at the Welsh Office, is purported to have told a farming conference, regarding sheep quotas, "I for one will fight the proposal tooth and nail."? Is that not a gross violation of the political neutrality about which the Minister has spoken and without which the Civil Service cannot properly function? Will he therefore ensure that Mr. Davies understands that he is being undesirably partisan and, if the Government make as abrupt an about face on sheep as they did on milk quotas, undesirably foolish as well?

Mr. Walker: I shall certainly look at the quotation mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The intention of Mr. Davies was to give factual briefing. If he made a remark of that nature, obviously I shall have words with him.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in his latest bout of petulance, unlike other Ministers and shadows, he has instructed his private office to give no replies to any questions from me, except in answer to parliamentary questions or to letters? In view of that, will he given an assurance that in future he will answer the parliamentary questions that are asked, not those that he wished had been asked, and that he will answer them on time, instead of giving holding answers, which happens all too often, even when the eventual substantive belated reply is the single word "No"?

Mr. Walker: In the many years in which I have had the privilege of having numerous shadows, including the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and others, I have not previously had the experience of the shadow's researchers telephoning staff in my private office and using quotes from civil servants in future political remarks. As a result, I have said that I would prefer to see the replies to the right hon. Gentleman. That will continue. I shall decide on the replies to parliamentary questions. I realise that quite often the replies are not liked by the right hon. Gentleman.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new initiatives he is planning to reduce hospital waiting lists in (a) Gwent and (b) Wales.

Mr. Grist: I am pleased to announce that the £1 million of waiting list funding in 1987–88 was associated with additional throughput of some 2,900 in-patients and day cases and 6,600 out-patients on the lists concerned. I congratulate district health authorities on that achievement. In view of that success, I am making available a further £1 million in the current financial year. District health authorities, including Gwent, have now submitted their waiting list action plans and officials of the National Health Service directorate will be monitoring progress towards their implementation.

Mr. Flynn: The whole House will be glad to know that there was a small general improvement in waiting lists throughout Wales, but the increase was small and will take decades to work through. I remind the Minister of his promise less than a year ago that by now no patient would have to wait longer than a month for an urgent operation or longer than a year for a non-urgent operation. We welcome the Minister's announcement, but remind him that instead of there being no patients waiting, as he promised, 8,940 non-urgent cases are still waiting more than a year, and the number of urgent cases has increased, in spite of the £1 million, to 2,360. Does he agree that the great mountain of pain, suffering, anxiety and misery of the 121,000 on the waiting lists deserves greater effort, and not the same again?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman does not give those who work in the Health Service the credit that he might give them. The number of in-patients treated in Wales has risen by 27 per cent. under this Government, and the number treated in Gwent has risen by 33 per cent. since we came to power. The increase in the number of people treated represents satisfied patients who were not being treated before.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: So that we might have the full picture of Health Service expenditure, can my hon. Friend give us comparative figures showing what was spent on the Health Service in Wales in 1979 and what is being spent this year?

Mr. Grist: I must have those figures somewhere. About £394 million was being spent when we came to power. The figure is more than £1·2 billion now.

Dr. Thomas: While the Minister is thinking about those figures, perhaps he might like to reflect on the effect on hospital waiting lists of closures and the rundown of

facilities by Gwynedd health authority and his Department. I appreciate that the Minister is unable to comment on the matter, but is he aware that I represented the Minister of State at the demonstration at Llandudno last Saturday, where hundreds of people made their views clear? Will he assure us that he will take account of public opinion in Gwynedd before he comes to any decision?

Mr. Grist: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all representations, whether from him, his friends or the constituents of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, will be taken great notice of.

Butetown Link Road

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will seek to give the earliest possible decision on South Glamorgan county council's proposed new design for the Butetown link road; and if he will provide the necessary capital allocation for a start to be made as soon as possible, and in any event no later than April 1989.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Our officials received details of the alternative scheme from South Glamorgan on 5 April. Further discussions are taking place with the county council, and I hope to be in a position to give a decision before transport supplementary grant bids for 1989–90 are invited in July.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. Will he assure us that his officials will make every effort to overcome any problems that arise with the timetable? Will he bear in mind the fact that, on the tail of the need to complete access, are longer-term requirements for the improvement of the eastern access to the Cardiff Bay and south Cardiff Bay area?

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We shall, of course, do our upmost to keep to this fairly tight schedule. I realise the importance of the Butetown link road in connection with the Grangetown link, the central link and the Cogan spur to Penarth, which it is hoped will be completed by the latter part of this year.

Blood Transfusion Service

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many operations in National Health Service hospitals will have to be postponed or cancelled in Wales because of staff shortages in the national blood transfusion service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grist: The blood transfusion service has taken contingency measures to minimise the effect of the difficulties experienced in recruiting clerk/drivers. The Welsh Office recently issued authority for special payments to be made for four new clerk/drivers. In the meantime, the situation is being closely monitored. Emergency surgery will not be affected.

Mr. Morgan: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the Welsh Office has brought about this crisis in the national blood transfusion service in Wales by stubbornly refusing, for much longer than any of the comparable English authorities, to approve a variation order affecting the basic salary of clerks and other administrative staff in the service? Does he further agree that the time has come to see to it that Health Service


administrative and clerical support staff are employed on conditions which provide for low turnover and reasonable wage rates so that job satisfaction can be combined with reasonable remuneration? Should we not do that rather than rely on high turnover and low wages, resulting in a constant attempt to recruit new staff to replace the experienced staff, on whom the service depends?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman rightly wants a steady and stable supply of staff to carry out this very responsible duty. However, I reject his charge that the Welsh Office is in some way responsible for the present state of affairs. The difficulty has been finding a proper grading policy for clerk/drivers and others in the Health Service. The staff side did not necessarily approve the proposals that were put to it in the Whitley council. It is now in the joint negotiating committee, and we hope to arrive at a conclusion that will end this problem once and for all.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

Mr. Peter Walker: On 14 April 1988 the numbers of unemployed claimants in Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 7,774, 22,728 and 140,073 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparision to be made.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the number of people in employment in East Anglia increased by 18·2 per cent. between 1979 and 1987, whereas in Wales the number fell by 14·9 per cent.? Will he confirm that, despite umpteen changes in compiling the statistics, unemployment in Newport, Gwent and Wales is still significantly above the 1979 figure?

Mr. Walker: I am very well aware that East Anglia had no coal or steel closures during that period, and that made a considerable difference to the figures. I am glad to say that many more jobs are being created in a diversity of employments and, with our current positive regional policy, that trend is continuing.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not a fact that in East Anglia there has also been a recent improvement in communications, which has resulted in a great improvement in the industrial standing of the region? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been an extremely promising decrease in the number of unemployed in Newport, Gwent and in Wales and a vast increase in the number of notified vacancies?

Mr. Walker: The best indicators of that increase are the local newspapers throughout Wales, which show a large increase in the number of advertisements of vacancies. There is no doubt that in many parts of Wales that trend is continuing, but there is still a long way to go.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State explain why unemployment in Mid Glamorgan has doubled since 1979, and why, according to the latest figures, there has been a substantial increase in unemployment in that region? In my constituency of Cynon Valley male unemployment is now 28 per cent.—the highest level in Wales. Will he tell

his Department that we are sick of glossy brochures such as the one I have here from British Coal Enterprise Ltd., which, despite all the hype, has created only 44 jobs in the Cynon Valley, despite the fact that 2,300 men have lost their jobs in the mining industry?

Mr. Walker: I recognise the problems in the hon. Lady's constituency, but I am sorry if she is suggesting that British Coal Enterprise has not done a good job. Many hon. Members throughout the Principality have expressed their anxiety about what would happen if the activities of that enterprise agency declined. It has helped a lot of new businesses and firms and it has given a lot of advice and money. I hope that that help will continue, and I naturally hope that its activities will continue in the hon. Lady's constituency, and with results.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The fall in unemployment throughout Wales is most welcome, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the problems that are faced by areas such as mine and other more remote rural areas when seeking to attract inward investment? Will he impress upon the Welsh Development Agency the importance of stressing the advantages that exist in rural Wales as well as industrial Wales?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I believe that the Welsh Development Agency has been active throughout the Principality. My hon. Friend will be aware that considerable developments are currently taking place within his constituency as a result of various aid and regional assistance. Perhaps one of the most exciting developments is that in the port area, which could open up important markets in Portugal and Spain. A great deal of help has been given by the Government in such areas.

Benefits

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact on individuals and on the provision of services in Wales for which he is responsible of recent changes in housing benefit and other benefit payments in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales in general.

Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that housing benefit and social security changes will be monitored by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and he will fully confer with the Welsh Office on the results of the changes.

Mr. Jones: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman of the dismay of one of my constituents, a world war 2 veteran, who fought from the Normandy beaches through to Hamburg and who now finds that he will lose housing benefit of £18 per week because he has a British Rail pension? I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that there are many other similar cases throughout Wales. Will he tell his Cabinet colleagues that the regulations are hurtful to vulnerable people, and will he urge the Prime Minister to think again about the harsh effects the regulations are having throughout Britain?

Mr. Walker: When one looks at the total changes, allowances as well as housing benefit, there are, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, some people who have benefited as well as some people being put at a disadvantage. Perhaps the people who have obtained additional benefit


from the changes had considerable need. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a review has already taken place, with a considerable range of changes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has promised that he will examine the effects of the total changes in detail. I am sure that if it is shown that further action may be needed, my right hon. Friend will take such action.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications by chronically sick and disabled people in (a) Ogwr, (b) Mid Glamorgan and (c) Wales, were made in 1987 for (i) central heating and (ii) other home adaptations; and how many of these were approved in 1987.

Mr. Grist: Information on the form of assistance given for home adaptations for the disabled and the number of applications made and approved is not collected by the Department. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is the number of grants that were completed in 1987. For Wales the total was 2,325; of these 333 were in Mid Glamorgan and 96 in the district of Ogwr.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that in the district of Ogwr there are currently 600 chronically sick and disabled people on the waiting list for central heating alone? Will the Minister look at some way of providing more money from the Welsh Office to enable those people to obtain the central heating that is so often essential for the medical conditions from which they are suffering?

Mr. Grist: I am concerned at what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps he will let me have a few more details on the position in his constituency. In general, Welsh district councils appreciate the needs of the disabled, and I understood that such applications were treated with priority by them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Meetings

Mr. Sackville: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, when the Church Commissioners last met; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Michael Alison, Second Church Estates Commissioner (Representing Church Commissioners): The commissioners' board of governors and committees meet frequently to regulate all aspects of the commissioners' work. General meetings of the commissioners are held at least once a year to consider the annual report and accounts and the allocation of money. The last general meeting was held on 17 December last year.

Mr. Sackville: Is it not time that the commissioners discussed the abuse of Church property by illegal immigrants for so-called sanctuary? Will my right hon. Friend dissociate himself from the British Council of Churches' recent incitement to its members to indulge in that sort of behaviour, or are we to witness the Church setting out a new immigration policy through a sort of Home Office in Heaven?

Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners are involved only indirectly through their financial support for parish churches and incumbents in the issues raised by my hon. Friend. He will know that the right of sanctuary was abolished by law in the 17th century and the commissioners would strongly deplore any pressure put upon incumbents or church wardens to break the law of the land as duly placed on the statute book by this democratically elected House.

Mr. Foulkes: If the Church Commissioners had their arms twisted, as did the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, to issue an invitation to the Prime Minister to address the Synod of the Church of England, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the offence that was caused to a large number of members of the Church of Scotland when the Prime Minister said that the love of money is the root of all evil, when we see such evil taking place, particularly in the City of London? Before any such invitation is issued to address the Synod of the Church of England, will the right hon. Gentleman, who has a particular long-standing connection with the Prime Minister, ensure that she practises what she preaches?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman does less than justice to his fellow countrymen. There are several hundred members of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. To imagine that those Scottish arms are so weak that they can be twisted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to force them to submit to an address that they did not want is, with due respect, a mockery. My right hon. Friend made a notable contribution to the important topical debate on the interaction of personal faith and civic responsibility and it was well received by the General Assembly.

Income

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the trends in the commissioners' income during the past five years.

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what have been the trends in the Church Commissioners' income over the past 12 months.

Mr. Alison: The commissioners' investment income has risen from £69·5 million in 1982 to an estimated £116·9 million in 1987, an increase of 68 per cent., compared with inflation of 25 per cent. over the same period. In the 12 months to December 1987 their income rose by about 17 per cent.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, welcome as those trends are, they would have been even better if certain Church leaders had given their flock sound spiritual leadership rather than indulging in partisan politics?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will recall that in her recent address to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
Christians will very often genuinely disagree"—
about aspects of secular politics—
though it is a mark of Christian manners that they will do so with courtesy and mutual respect.

Mr. Banks: May I tell the right hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Question."] Until I heard the Prime Minister give her sermon in Scotland on Saturday I had thought that the Budget was written by St. Nigel, not St. Paul. As the Prime Minister is fond of quoting St. Paul, why did she not use the part of St. Paul's first letter to Timothy, which says that our leaders should be sober, temperate and
not greedy of filthy lucre"?
Why did she miss that?

Mr. Alison: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken to quoting the Scriptures. We look forward to more of that.

Mr. Banks: I am a very saintly person.

Mr. Alison: If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the letter of the law, or the letter of the word, my right hon. Friend has never hitherto—as far as I am aware—been guilty of insobriety, and she certainly was not when she adressed the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

Meetings

Mr. Favell: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission next expects to meet; and what subjects will be discussed.

Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission next expects to meet; and what subjects will be discussed.

Sir Peter Hordern (on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission): Neither the date nor the agenda for the next meeting of the Commission has yet been fixed.

Mr. Favell: When my hon. Friend next meets the Commission, will he ask it to estimate the savings that could be made by moving the National Audit Office to the regions? If he has any problem, I am sure that Stockport council will be only too pleased to assist.

Sir Peter Hordern: The costs of the London headquarters building have been carefully considered in the past, both by the Public Accounts Committee and the Commission. My hon. Friend may wish to know that the National Audit Office currently employs 655 staff in the headquarters building, 65 in other London offices and 176 in other parts of the country and abroad. He and the House may be assured that the Commission will continue to examine closely the costs of maintaining major premises in London, particularly if in future more offices of Government Departments are dispersed to other parts of the country.

Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman place on the next agenda of the Public Accounts Commission a review of the practices of the Audit Commission, to see whether anything can be learnt about them? It appears that when the Audit Commission discovers even 12 paperclips bought by local authorities that are surplus to requirements, that is front page news. Will he therefore

explain why the Ministry of Defence can overspend at will, sometimes by up to £1 billion a project, without being brought fully to account by the House or the Commission?

Sir Peter Hordern: The Public Accounts Commission carefully examines the estimates and the corporate plan of the National Audit Office, but it does not seek to inquire into its findings. That is the task of the Public Accounts Committee, which is so ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman draws his right hon. Friend's attention to this point?

Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that the House will probably be relieved to know that the Commission has not yet set a date for a further meeting, in view of the inevitable costs associated with such meetings? Given my hon. Friend's heavy programme of engagements at home and abroad, I am sure that that will be for his convenience as well.

Sir Peter Hordern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot say that the costs of the Public Accounts Commission are considerable, unlike some other Standing Committees and Select Committees of the House. Unfortunately, the Public Accounts Commission never goes abroad, and I think that the same can be said of the Public Accounts Committee, so, I think that extra costs are unlikely to arise.

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what subjects were discussed.

Sir Peter Hordern: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I have just given.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given him notice? Will the Public Accounts Commission reflect on the view of Sir Frank Cooper, the former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, as to whether—he said this in the Suntory lecture—the Prime Minister's press secretary should be paid out of public or party funds?

Sir Peter Hordern: I do not think that the Prime Minister's press secretary's salary is a matter for the Public Accounts Commission, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise it, it may be a matter for the Public Accounts Committee. In any event, it is scarcely likely that the press secretary would have high on his list of priorities the activities either of the Public Accounts Commission or of the National Audit Office.

Comptroller and Auditor General (Estimates)

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what account the Public Accounts Commission takes in examining the estimates submitted for its approval by the Comptroller and Auditor General of his broad priorities for the deployment of his staff to monitor overspending by Government Departments; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Peter Hordern: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I have just given.

Mr. Cohen: Should not the Public Accounts Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General have as their foremost priority control of defence costs?


Millions of pounds are overspent or wasted. Such events are commonplace. Will the Public Accounts Commission undertake to insist that the Ministry of Defence publishes all overspends of £1 million and over? It refuses to do so at the moment. Should not public money wasted in that way be subject to public scrutiny?

Sir Peter Hordern: The Public Accounts Commission does not look into defence spending, although we approve the estimates of the National Audit Office as a whole. I advise the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, since I recollect from my experience of the PAC that overspending on defence is a matter that is considered frequently by that Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Members' Facilities

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Lord President of the Council what present plans there are to improve facilities for hon. and right hon. Members within the Palace of Westminster.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I understand that the various Sub-Committees of the Services Committee have considered and are considering a number of suggestions put to them by right hon. and hon. Members for improving facilities within the Palace of Westminster. If the hon. Lady has a particular suggestion to make, I shall of course consider it.

Mrs. Clwyd: One of my suggestions would not be for more unisex bathrooms, but for more equal facilities for men and women in the Palace of Westminster. The Lord President will know, because I have had long correspondence with the Services Committee on the matter what I am referring to. Also, we should have better accommodation for hon. Members and their staff. The accommodation here is disgraceful. If we were subject to the health and safety regulations, most of the accommodation in the Palace would be shut down. We should also have basic facilities for the large number of staff working in the Palace, for example, a shop, so that hon. Members, instead of limping to the back of a queue late at night to get a bottle of milk and a bit of bread—[Interruption]—can shop for these basic necessities, such as toothpaste, tights and whatever else they may need during the day. Will the Lord President look seriously at the provision of such services, particularly a unisex hairdresser, who can do something for women's hair, rather than simply men's hair?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady should apply for an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Wakeham: Provision for a shop is included in the plans for phase 1 of the new building, which is expected to be ready for occupation in 1990. With regard to unisex, or ladies', hairdressing services, and other matters, I have read with great interest the correspondence conducted by the hon. Lady and other hon. Members, which goes back to long before I held this position. The point is well made. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee

is considering all those matters and will continue to do so. It hopes to reach the best conclusions for the benefit of the House.

Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend consider improving the facilities for tours? Now that the Palace is becoming ever more popular, the difficulty that Members of Parliament or, in practice their staff, nearly always face is in balancing on the tightrope between hiring guides and arranging for visiting parties. That could be much more easily dealt with if there was one central office dealing with all aspects.

Mr. Wakeham: This was looked at fairly recently, but if my hon. Friend has any suggestions he should in the first instance talk to the Serjeant at Arms.

Mr. Wallace: Can the Lord President help by telling me whether my eyes deceive me or whether there is a door. in the ministerial corridor labelled "The Solicitor-General for Scotland"? Given that the Solicitor-General for Scotland does not sit in this House or the other place, how could a door so labelled be justified? If there is such a door, does the right hon Gentleman not think that the least that he could do in return is to allow some period at Scottish Question Time for Scottish Members to ask questions related to the responsibilities of the Solicitor-General for Scotland?

Mr. Wakeham: I would need notice of the first part of that question. I shall go and have a look for myself. I do not know whether there is a door so marked, but the arrangements for answering Scottish questions have been dealt with on a number of occasions from the Dispatch Box and I think that they are perfectly satisfactory.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not so much the facilities of this place that need improving as the conduct of some hon. Members?

Mr. Wakeham: I am responsible for many things, but not for the way in which hon. Members spend their spare time.

Cannon Row Police Station

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council when Cannon Row police station was vacated by police and made available to the House authorities.

Mr. Wakeham: In the summer of 1985.

Mr. Banks: Will the Lord President of the Council tell us when we shall have access to facilities over there? The Lord President knows that many hon. Members are complaining about the appalling working conditions that we have over here. I speak as a person who has just lifted the parliamentary stakhanovite of the year award. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) would greatly appreciate an office and he could have one at Cannon Row.

Mr. Wakeham: There have been a great many things to do and there have been some difficulties about getting on with that work. Refurbishment is due for completion in the summer of 1989. The allocation of a desk for the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is a matter for the Opposition Whip's office, and I think that there should be a desk available for him somewhere.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that by and large the office facilities in the Palace of Westminster are perfectly adequate and compare quite favourably with those in the private sector? Will he urge caution on those who would waste taxpayers' money?

Mr. Wakeham: It is nice to hear from a satisfied customer. If there were more of them life would be easier for me. I recognise that there are some legitimate demands for better accommodation, and all those responsible are doing their best to improve matters. We cannot work miracles.

Cancer Screening

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects a cancer screening programme to begin for females working in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Wakeham: The House of Commons Commission has recently accepted in principle the recommendation of the Services Committee that on-site cancer screening should be provided for all women working in the House, and has made appropriate budgetary provision for this purpose. I hope that it will be possible to provide the service in the autumn.

Mr. Rooker: Many of the women who have asked for this matter to be dealt with will be truly grateful for that reply. So that there is no misunderstanding outside, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is aware of the take-up on the pilot programme in the other place, and can he confirm that treatment was required as a result of that programme?

Mr. Wakeham: Yes. I cannot give exact figures for the take-up, but I know that it was high. The percentage of those who had to be referred to doctors for further investigation and treatment was also high. I think that that was part of the reason for the Services Committee recommending that this service should be brought into the House of Commons.

Mr. Dickens: Is the Lord President of the Council aware that the facilities for women Members are quite disgraceful? Would he be surprised to learn that it is within my knowledge, though certainly not within my sight, that one lady Member has to surreptitiously——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about cancer screening. Was that within the hon. Gentleman's sight?

Mr. Dickens: Added to the lack of these facilities are other facilities for women——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that this question is about cancer screening.

Mr. Dobson: I take this opportunity to thank the Lord President for his contribution towards getting this cancer screening programme going. I also pay tribute to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford,

East (Mr. Orme) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley). Can the Lord President confirm that arrangements will be made to ensure that testing done here is properly logged, and that the women concerned are taken on board by their local call and recall schemes?

Mr. Wakeham: The exact details of how the facility will be organised are matters for negotiation with the women's national cancer control campaign, which is likely to provide the service, together with the local health authorities. In answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), 78 women took advantage of the programme in the other place, and the tests of 19 showed that they had problems, so they were referred for further examination. I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said and I echo the thanks to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who chaired the Sub-Committee that considered this matter, and to all those who supported it.

Mr. Shersby: What is the cost to public funds of providing these additional facilities?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot say exactly at this stage, and we shall not know for sure until the scheme has been worked out, but the budgetary provision is £10,000.

Prime Minister's Question Time

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to extend the time available for Prime Minister's Question Time; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: I have no such proposals.

Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on average about 200 or more hon. Members table questions to the Prime Minister, and of those at the most five are reached? Bearing in mind that 20 or 25 years ago only about 20 or 25 questions were tabled, is there not a need to extend Prime Minister's Question Time to ensure that Back Benchers have more opportunity to question the Head of Government, especially as the Leader of the Opposition has always used this parliamentary slot as well?

Mr. Wakeham: I would welcome a longer appearance by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has put his question in that way. I know that he has a long record of trying to improve, as he sees it, the way in which Prime Minister's questions are dealt with in the House. We have looked at this a number of times over the years and we always find that the present system is better than all others, although it is a matter that we keep under review.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave notice that I wished to raise, under Standing Order No. 20——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman did not give me notice. I received a telephone call from him. The hon. Gentleman obviously did not get my message.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear it. The hon. Gentleman sent me a telephone message, but I have received no written notification of an application under Standing Order No. 20. My Office sent a message to the hon. Gentleman, but he obviously did not receive it. Mr. Madden.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No; I have called Mr. Madden.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you an issue of importance that concerns all hon. Members. It is the refusal of the DHSS to answer, by way of parliamentary questions, questions that we would wish to ask about the operation of the social fund, which is now established for every DHSS office. The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled, in a magazine article in April, made it clear that the DHSS is receiving, through a new computer network, a wide range of information about the operation of the social fund. Therefore, I was disturbed, when I tabled a number of questions on 12 May, to be told that the information was not available. I was further disturbed to be told, in reply to other questions, that the DHSS does not intend to answer any questions about the operation of the social fund and will instead put information in the Library on a monthly basis.
I was told on Friday that the information about the first month's operation would not be available for two weeks. I ask you to reflect on that situation and to consider asking the Department of Health and Social Security to reconsider its policy decision. It is important that all hon. Members should have an opportunity to ask questions about the operation of social funds in their constituencies and should have the right to have those questions answered by the DHSS.

Mr. Speaker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter, but I am not responsible for Government policy. It is not for me to ask the Government to change their policy. That is a question that the hon. Gentleman should put to the Leader of the House at the appropriate moment, possibly on Thursday.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Campbell-Savours.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can I ask you to reflect on the ruling that you have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in light of the fact that I have an agreement with your Office—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not normally state this in the House, but, for the benefit of the House, may I say that Standing Order No. 20 applications must be raised on the day in question. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) sent me a telephone message about an article that appeared last Friday. Today is Monday. No point of order arises.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have not made my point of order yet.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asked me to reflect upon the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I have done that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can I make my point of order?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Further to the ruling that you have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), the problem facing hon. Members is that we have been told that information that we know is available to the Government is not to be made public to the House of Commons. I understand that you cannot be held responsible for Government policy, but, when we are told that, for example, information about housing benefit cannot be given to hon. Members when we know it exists, it makes it impossible for us as Members of Parliament to carry out our duties. I ask you to reconsider your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot add anything to what I have already said on this matter, but the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip are here and I am sure that the two points that have been raised, which are matters of concern to the House, have been noted by those responsible. I am not responsible for such matters.

Mr. George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a point of genuine concern about the matter. This is not the only example, although it is a bad example, of information which is essential for any hon. Member to carry out his duty being available to Ministers, but not being provided through parliamentary questions. There is another example in the case of poll tax registration in Scotland. I understand that the Government have information about the slowness of registration in the Strathclyde region, but will not give that information to hon. Members. There is a point of principle for you in relation——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to his point of order. I do not think that I can be held responsible for matters of principle, although I am responsible for points of order in the House.

Mr. Foulkes: The point of order is that the Government are responsible to the House and, therefore, you have a responsibility to ensure that questions which are properly tabled and in order are accepted by the Table Office and answered by the Government. You have a duty to protect the interests of Back Benchers. That is the question of order.

Mr. Speaker: Undoubtedly, I have a responsibility for questions that are tabled, but I am not responsible for the answers that are given.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I shall take no further points of order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that there are 22 hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. He is not one of them today. Hon. Members are anxious to proceed and, in the interests of the House, we should do that.
The House should understand that applications under Standing Order No. 20 must be received on the day in question and not refer to something that has happened previously.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: You are changing your ruling.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that it is not possible to raise a Standing Order No. 20 application on a Friday, and consequently my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not have an opportunity to make his application then. He and other hon. Members who represent constituencies that are vast distances from this place find it difficult to submit a written application on a Monday. I should be grateful if you would reconsider your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to both the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Matters that arise on a Friday can be raised again on a Monday by means of the Standing Order No. 20 procedure. It is clear that, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman did not receive the message that I sent to him on this matter. He conveyed a telephone message to my Office but in that message he did not specify the subject that he wished to raise. Instead, he drew attention to an article that appeared in the press last Friday.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we should move on.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Antarctic Treaty (Agreed Measures) (No. 2) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. &amp;c.—[Mr. Durant.]

Opposition Day

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Housing

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and others. No fewer than 22 hon. Members have sought so far to participate in the debate and I appeal for brief contributions so that as many as possible of them may be called.

Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the housing policies of Her Majesty's Government which have created record levels of homelessness, a dramatic decline in the supply of low cost rented housing, house price inflation and increasing urbanisation of the South East; and therefore calls upon the Government to introduce policies which will end dependence on bed and breakfast accommodation at the earliest possible time and restore a planned programme of house building, repair and renovation, and to introduce a reformed system of housing finance designed to create a genuine and fair choice between renting and buying for people at all levels of income, and an effective system of regulation of development to enhance the rural and urban environment of this country.
One of the hallmarks of a civilised and affluent society is that it finds it possible to provide good, high-standard housing for a large majority of its citizens, if not for all. There is no reason why we in the United Kingdom should not achieve that aim. Housing is vital to the welfare of the nation, for we know that people in poor housing suffer poor health and that some people in inadequate housing achieve less than others in education. We know that families are more likely to disintegrate if housing is inadequate or inappropriate. We know also that the supply of good housing affects the general level of community welfare.
I have pointed out to the Government many times that they will not be able to deal wholly and properly with crime prevention until they deal with homeless young people. Home Office research demonstrates a close and strong link between young people being homeless, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and crime generally. I see the previous Minister with responsibilities for housing wearing his new hat as a Government spokesman on crime prevention. I know that he is out of touch with the problem and he does not understand the nature and extent of crime, especially casual street violence and the rise in alcohol abuse among young people, and crime generally.
The Government have had the blessing of North sea oil to prime the pump of the economy. They have not used it in the way in which we, the Opposition, or many others would have recommended. Instead they have used North sea oil revenues to finance mass unemployment. We have seen the housing crisis growing at an alarming pace.
House price inflation is running at 20 per cent. this year. The Halifax building society states that in the first few months of 1988 the house price inflation rate has been at that level. In real terms, that is greater than the rate which prevailed in the 1970s. The rate in East Anglia is 40 per cent., which is the highest in the country. East Anglia has overtaken both London and the south-east.
The Government would like to raise interest rates to dampen the house boom, but they cannot do so. We saw the trap in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister placed themselves, and we are aware also that there is a danger that borrowers will overstretch themselves and that the various financial institutions that are lending them money—many others apart from the building societies and banks—will demand that borrowers repay their debts. If they do not, they will become homeless or get into arrears.
The evidence is clear. In 1985, mortgage defaults were 16,490 for building societies and 570 for local authorities. By 1987, local authorities had been able to reduce the number of defaulters to 490 as a result of good management. In the private sector, the number of mortgage defaults had increased from 16,490 to 22,630. There are now 10,080 families who are homeless because they have defaulted on their mortgages. Many of the people in accommodation for the homeless in places such as the new town of Telford are there because they have not been able to pay their mortgages. The Government blame local authorities for using emergency accommodation. It is significant that the Government are happy to use taxpayers' money to subsidise mortgages, yet somehow when mortgage companies cannot come to an arrangement with those who fall into difficulty—perhaps because of unemployment or ill-health—the ratepayer is expected to provide. There are 64,000 people who are more than six months in arrears on their mortgages, and the numbers are increasing.
This is not the end of the crisis. The repairs bill is frightening. In the public sector, it is estimated to be £19 billion. In the private sector, the repairs bill to maintain housing standards—let alone improve them—is £27·5 billion.
The Government tell us that, although they are willing to subsidise purchase, they must not, in their terms, "over-subsidise" rents. They talk of fair rents and market rents. Between 1979 and 1982, fair rents on unfurnished accommodation increased by 47 per cent. Between 1982 and 1984, they increased by another 18 per cent. and between 1984 and 1986 by another 17 per cent. As everyone recognises, people cannot sensibly afford to choose renting over buying. They are forced into buying, even if they want to rent. A person who cannot afford to get a mortgage has no option but to pay rent, which is often equivalent to mortgage repayments.
Housing benefit has been cut eight times. Despite the £100 million concessions wrung out of the Government, there is still the £500 million cut which was made last April. It is time that we put the meat on the bones of that argument. A 64-year-old pensioner lady suffering from diabetes came to my advice surgery to tell me that she had lost £10·81 per week in housing benefit. Because of the concessions that we wrung out of the Government, that will be reduced—temporarily—to £2·50, unless rates and rents increase, when it will probably be more. The most for which she can hope is that that £2·50 will be held for about a year. After that, she still stands to lose the rest of that money. A 75-year-old couple—the man was disabled in the war—who will lose £7·40 a week heat their home with paraffin. What are we supposed to be doing to such people? How can the Government possibly justify that?
Housing subsidies tell us a lot. Last Thursday, during Environment questions, the Secretary of State made a desperate attempt to evade answering a question about the

different forms of subsidy for different tenures. In 1987–88, a local authority tenure attracted a subsidy of £271, compared with £265 in 1981–82. As I pointed out, those figures were misleading. Even on the right hon. Gentleman's figures, that was an increase in subsidy of £6. For the owner-occupier, the increase was £62. The subsidy increased from £514 in 1981–82 to £576 in 1987–88.
But those were not the real figures. These are the real figures. in 1980–81, local authority tenants received subsidy worth £1·393 billion. By 1987–88, that had been cut to its present level of £500 million. That is a cut of nearly two thirds in the subsidy available to public sector tenants—while mortgage income tax relief for owner-occupiers for the same two years started at £2,190 million—about £700 million more in the first instance—and has now rocketed to a massive £5,000 million per annum compared with the £500 million available to local authorities.
It might be instructive now to look at the Government's White Paper issued towards the end of last year. Paragraph 1.10 states:
These problems have often been compounded by indiscriminate subsidies from the rates to hold down rents.
At the moment, many Conservative-controlled local authorities are increasing rents in the public sector to keep the rates down. It is almost as if they were using an owner-occupier's income to keep taxes down. That would be the alternative if the practice was operated in the owner-occupied sector. The White Paper went on to state that that created dependency among those people. If it creates dependency, the Government had better tell us why dependency is not also created when subsidy is given to owner-occupiers. That is why the Government's housing policy is so fundamentally flawed.
A cut in the subsidy to rent and an increase in the subsidy to buy means that the rented sector will dry up. I have explained that to Conservative Members time and again, and to be fair to some of them, including the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), they acknowledged that I was correct about the figures. In Dorset, the price of the average family house is about £90,000 and a manual labourer will receive £80 to £90 a week. If that house becomes vacant, the owner can sell it and put the money in a building society and he will receive nearly £200 a week in interest. Therefore, it is obvious that the market rent will be close to £200 at the very least. How can we expect that manual worker in Dorset to pay £200 a week rent out of his wages of £80 to £90 a week or to buy that house if it costs £90,000? He cannot do that. That is why the Government's housing policy is fundamentally wrong.
In England in 1975, 55 per cent. of people were owner-occupiers, 29 per cent. were local authority tenants and 16 per cent. were in the private rented sector. The Government have long boasted of their intention since they were elected in 1979—and before that—to increase the supply of private rented accommodation. In 1984—these figures have decreased more since then—63 per cent. were owner-occupiers, and that is an increase of 8 per cent. over the 1975 figure; 26 per cent. were local authority tenants, representing a drop of 3 per cent., and 11 per cent. were in the private rented sector, a drop of 5 per cent
We have told the Government time and time again that the private rented sector will continue to decline unless they do something about housing finance. The Rent Acts are only marginal in that respect. When the Rent Acts were abolished by an equally foolish Conservative Government


in 1957, we saw the advent of Rachmanism and a dramatic collapse of the private rented sector. More houses were removed from the private rented sector then at any other time. In 1980, the Government tried to get rid of most of the Rent Acts then in force. As the figures that I have referred to show, there was another decline in the private rented sector.
I predict without any hesitation that unless the Government do something about housing finance, they can remove all the Rent Acts, but they will only increase harassment and the activities of some of the worst aspects of landlordism—although that does not involve all the private landlord sector by any means—and a significant minority of private landlords will behave extremely badly. As there will be no adequate supply, there will be no real choice for people who want to go to the public or private sector. They will not have any choice, because people will be keeping their houses empty for sale.
A survey undertaken by the Department of the Environment showed that only about 2·5 per cent. of properties were kept empty because of the Rent Acts. The vast majority of them were kept empty either for repairs or for sale.
I can pray in aid one newspaper that is becoming increasingly supportive to me. I quote none other than The Daily Telegraph, which on 17 May commented:
A prudential restraint on the ratio of home loans to property values is called for: and notice should be served on mortgage interest tax relief before the credit boom turns, as these things do if unattended, into bust. This way too, the need for higher interest rates would be diminished, and the present tensions between Prime Minister and Chancellor resolved.
I am grateful to The Daily Telegraph for that supportive evidence.
I make again the offer we have made to the Government several times. We are willing to talk about housing finance reform, but any such reform must be fairer both within and between the rented and purchase sectors. It must also be capable of being introduced in a way that does not cause either mortgage or rent payers economic distress. The last mentioned is particularly important, bearing in mind the increasing number of people being put into accommodation for the homeless because they cannot cope with their mortgages due to unemployment or rising interest rates, or because of the dramatic increase in rents in both local authority and private sector housing brought about by the present Government.
The most shameful and telling figure of all relates to homelessness. In 1978, 53,000 people were registered as homeless in Britain. Despite all the assets of North sea oil and the Government's boasts about an improving economy—although if one examines manufacturing industry, one sees no evidence of that; we must take the Government's word for it—the homeless figure has doubled to 100,000. That is the tip of the iceberg, because many homeless do not register. The youngsters sleeping under bridges in cardboard boxes do not register.
No one has made an accurate assessment of the number of homeless. We only know that the figure has dramatically increased. I emphasise again the enormous consequences of that trend for future generations and for safety on our streets. Young homeless on the streets at night will be exploited, and they will drift into drink, drugs and crime. Although some of them may survive that

experience, it is inevitable that a larger number of youngsters are falling into such difficulties than need be the case.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend refers to the fact that the number of homeless has doubled since 1979 to 100,000. What does he think of the sermon recently given by the Prime Minister when she preached about love of money and said that it was what one did with money that was important? There are an extra 50,000 homeless people. With all the money that this wealthy country of ours has, it is time that the Prime Minister preached about something else.

Mr. Soley: One of the reasons why the Prime Minister gets into so much trouble with the churches is that they have a different perception of what this country's priorities ought to be today: my hon. Friend makes that point very well.
It would be £4,000 per annum cheaper to build more council houses than to keep the homeless in bed-and-breakfast accommodation—yet it appears that the Government are willing to use taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to keep people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation when it would be cheaper to allow local authorities to build houses for them.
The Government try to blame local authorities for homelessness and the numbers in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They accuse local authorities of owning all the void properties. However, if one examines the figures, something quite frightening emerges concerning the Government's responsibility in this matter. It is not just that they are cutting the money available to local authorities or that they have deliberately attempted to undermine and destroy this country's local authorities. The Government also have a responsibility for the level of voids.
The average level of voids among local authority properties is 2·5 per cent. The figure for housing associations is 3·1 per cent.—slightly higher, but still good. In the private sector, the figure is 4·2 per cent. The worst offender of all, at 6·9 per cent, is Government properties. Last Wednesday, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment stated that Government properties were sometimes kept empty for "operational reasons". Operational reasons? Is one in five Metropolitan police houses kept empty for operational reasons? Forty-odd flats and houses being knocked down outside Wormwood Scrubs prison for landscaping and car parking and kept empty for nine years in some cases—is that really for operational reasons?
When the Under-Secretary visited Southend, a Conservative borough, its members tried to impress on her that, although they had tried all the initiatives that she had urged them to try, they still could not cope with the basic needs of homeless people without using bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Despite all the initiatives that the Government have urged on local authorities, even their own supporters—the Conservative councils—cannot deliver.
The underlying cause comes down to two figures. In 1977, the figure for building starts for local authority houses was 140,000. By 1979, it had been reduced to about 92,000—a good figure to have maintained at that stage. By 1985, the figure had dropped to 33,000. There has been a dramatic cut in the supply of housing. A Government who


are selling their economic philosophy on the basis of supply and demand do not seem to understand that if supply is deliberately and wantonly cut it will produce an acute crisis in demand. They do not understand their own lectures about the economy.
There is no way in which the private sector can or will ever he able to make up the difference, and the Government know it. Even if they pumped money into the private sector with tax handouts such as the business expansion scheme and the Chancellor's new approach of Rachmanism paid for by the taxpayer, they still would not be able to get the supply back to anywhere near the level of the late 1970s.

Mr. Robin Squire: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman moved quickly from the figures on council housing to the totality. Would he care to confirm the most recent annual figures for private construction? Are they not the highest for 14 years?

Mr. Soley: As I said, they have gone up, but nowhere near enough. We are talking about a cut from 140,000 to 33,000. The increase in the private sector makes up only a few thousand of that.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I think that the hon. Gentleman would wish to have the complete story, as he referred only to the public sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) tried to get the total figures from him. Perhaps he knows that last year completions totalled just over 201,000, and that in the current year the figure is expected to be 223,000. Those are very large figures. I grant that the majority are in the private sector, but the hon. Gentleman must tell the House the whole story.

Mr. Soley: I have told it, but I will tell it to the hon. Gentleman again. He can add up. He has referred to an increase of 20,000; I mentioned a cut from 140,000 to 33,000. Let the hon. Gentleman work it out. The figure of 20,000 goes into that figure about four times.
Let me quote what was said by the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine):
I am far from persuaded that building more and more houses—that fewer and fewer of our children can afford—actually addresses the problem".
The right hon. Member for Henley knows full well that—[Interruption.] I shall return to the subject in a moment, so hon. Members need not get excited about it just yet. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the number of new houses being built to which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) referred are not for first-time buyers or for low-cost renting. They are being sold for £150,000 and £200,000 in the south-east of England.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): So that we can have the complete picture, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that more than half the new houses built in the last quarter—these are the latest figures that we have—went to first-time buyers?

Mr. Soley: The problem with that is that the amount being borrowed in mortgages is now well over 80 per cent. The Minister knows the message from The Daily Telegraph on that. He also knows that it is profoundly dangerous. There need he only a slight decline in the present boom in house prices, and the consequences will be catastrophic for those who have overreached themselves.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware of any occasion on which a homeless family in a bed-and-breakfast hotel in London have been able to go to an estate agent and buy one of the new houses which have been built since the Tory Government came to office, and which they have encouraged in the private sector?

Mr. Soley: Precisely. I shall return to the subject of house prices in the south-east in a few moments.
The other figure that adds to my argument is this. Residential construction Investment in the United Kingdom has fallen to an all-time low of about 2·1 per cent. For almost all our competitors, it is over 3 per cent., and in places such as West Germany and many other parts of Europe it is about 6 per cent. We are investing less in housing than almost any comparable country in North America or Europe.
The Government say that the answer lies in the Housing Bill, as we see in their rather pathetic amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is it?"] It is a long-running farce, but we have not seen it yet.
The Association of District Councils, a Conservative-controlled body, does not agree that the answer lies in the Housing Bill. The association thinks that the Bill is a disaster. Nor does that answer please the Conservative-controlled council of Barnet, in the Prime Minister's constituency, which had this to say:
the Government's White Pa per"—
that is, the White Paper that led to the Bill—
confirms the belief that the legislation is clearly aimed at breaking up the housing stocks of local authorities, rather than to give a clear 'tenant's choice'".
In Southend, a representative of another Conservative council—this time in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Transport-said:
I have been asked to register with you strongly that the Committee believes that the proposals would without safeguards be likely to reduce the Council's already grossly inadequate ability to meet its minimum statutory obligations to provide accommodation for priority applicants".
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said:
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the pick-a-landlord idea has more to do with political ideology than good management",
and the Royal Institute of British Architects said:
the general tenor of the proposals is weighted against the local authority, even when it has a good record of housing management".
The Government's answer did not please any of those organisations. Nor did it please the most senior Tory on Gloucester city council, who resigned after 16 years as chair of the housing committee. In his retirement speech, he said:
I took my decision riot to seek re-election while convalescing from a heart operation last year. I am concerned about the future of public housing in this country and especially with the legislation that is going through Parliament at the present time. I do not want to be part of it.
He said that
on housing the Government had simply got it wrong.
So we know what Conservative councillors think up and down the country. The response to the White Paper from a Conservative-controlled local authority was either neutral or sympathetic; the rest tended to be critical. So much for Conservative support for the White Paper.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: rose——

Mr. Soley: I will not give way. I would be impinging on other Members' time.
Telford and Milton Keynes tell us something very interesting. When tenants in Peterborough new town were asked whether they would prefer a housing association or a council landlord, they voted by 94 per cent. to stay with the council. What are the Government doing? In Telford and Milton Keynes, they have decided to do away with elections for two years. They will transfer them first; then, after a couple of years, they will let the people have a vote—by which time they will have done all that they can to sabotage the ability of the local authority to offer an alternative management. That is why the so-called "tenants' choice" is in fact the landlords' choice. It is the opportunity to pick a tenant. If there were any real choice, it would apply to non-resident landlords in the private sector, so that tenants could genuinely make a choice in either the private or public sector. They are not allowed to do that.
The crisis hurts most for those who are homeless or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. An article in The Guardian last week by Michelle Beauchamp put it very well. She wrote about one individual:
For three pounds, he got a bed in a room with six other people (three bunk beds and a single bed), a few blankets and a cooked breakfast the next morning.
I assume that that was to escape the provisions of the Rent Acts.
There was also a television room with 12 beds in it and, at a guess, seven other rooms with between six and 12 people each. In all, there must have been close to 100 people staying there—all young and all homeless.
That would mean a rent of about £300 a week, and that is probably what the landlord would charge. The alternative would be for the landlord to sell the property and put the money into a building society. Without any of the hassle of being a landlord, he would get more money. That is why in my area, a few months ago, I found four people sharing a room, each of whom was paying £70 a week.
The Housing Bill will push up market rents to such a level that either landlords will go to the rich end of the market—to the companies and overseas businesses in London—or they will pack in as many people as possible. If they are really sharp, they will use the business expansion scheme that was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, get a tax return after five years and then evict under the much easier to evict procedure of the Housing Bill in order to sell the property with vacant possession. They will enjoy both a vacant possession sale and a tax handout—all from the Government.
The Centre Point organisation that caters for many homeless people in London points out that it is very difficult for young people to return home. Conservative Members say from time to time that that is what they ought to do, and in her lecture to the Church of Scotland the Prime Minister seemed to think that it is a good idea, too. One quarter of the young people who stay at Centre Point have been in care. A number of them have been sexually abused at home. Are we really saying that they ought to return home? Is that the answer to the housing crisis?
What is happening is desperately serious, and in a funny sort of way it is now coming home to roost among the Conservatives in the south-east of England. The Government have divided the north from the south by using the proceeds from North sea oil to fund the south. They are also building the Channel tunnel. Incidentally

and significantly, engineering companies are now advertising that they will pay the mortgages of the engineers that they are recruiting from overseas and in Britain because they will not move to the south-east unless their mortgages are paid. The M25 has also pushed up values. One may argue that all this should happen, but if it happens without sensible planning and without a sensible system for spreading economic wealth throughout the country, the result is a crisis in the south-east.
Last Monday, I said that it was all about boundaries and votes in the south-east. Some Tory Members said that it was not about that at all, but now we have written evidence from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). He wrote a letter to a Conservative councillor but a copy was also sent to another councillor. In his letter the hon. and learned Member for Burton said:
Burton's structure Plan.
I note that 4,500 new homes are proposed. This means an increase in the number of electors of about 11,000 bringing the overall total to 83,000—some 15,000 above the figure we were warned at the last redistribution (when Burton was saved from fragmentation) would be likely to be acceptable at the next redistribution.
It follows that the building of any more houses on this scale is likely to lead to the dismemberment of the Burton constituency which is likely to reduce"—
this is it—
my Parliamentary majority—and ensure a Labour majority on the East Staffordshire District Council for most if not all of the time.
I am pleased to see that in the Burton Mail the Conservative councillor concerned said:
I have no wish to be associated with the contents of this letter.
Full marks to him. I note that the hon. and learned Member for Burton said in the Burton Mail that this letter was intended only for a Conservative colleague. [HON. MEMBERS: "Surprise, surprise."] If so, I wonder why it is written on House of Commons notepaper. You, Mr. Speaker, will have a view about using House of Commons notepaper for party political purposes.
The truth of the matter, as the right hon. Member for Henley said, is that the introduction of so-called rural villages will change the structure of Conservative voting in the south-east and lead to boundary changes. I said last Monday that I was one of the Labour party Members who suffered last time from boundary changes. This time it will affect the Tory party. That is one of the small morsels of pleasure that I get out of what is otherwise an appalling scene.
Many people in the south-east, as well as some Conservative Back Benchers, are right to be concerned about the unplanned building of houses and housing estates in the south-east. I referred last week to Old Basing, near Basingstoke. The new houses at Old Basing are not for first-time buyers. They are not low-cost accommodation for rent. Those houses will cost a minimum of £150,000. Nobody on low or average incomes will be able to afford them.
The Secretary of State's problem is that he has twigged that the Government will have to do something fast about housing. That led to the introduction of the business expansion scheme. The Government tried to let it rip in the south-east, in the hope that, somehow, the market would meet demand. The Government then found that a number of Conservative Members oppose their plans because they find that their nice, comfortable, cosy little areas will begin


to look like urban parkland. Without sensible planning in Greater London, in the south-east and nationally, we shall not get this right.
Conservative Members believe that the answer lies in more and more home ownership. I accept that home ownership has increased by about 10 per cent., but if they believe that home ownership will solve the problem, I remind them that Switzerland, with one of the best housing records in Europe, has a very low level of home ownership. On the other hand, in Bangladesh, there is about 99 per cent. home ownership. The idea that tenure is the deciding factor is irrelevant.
If the Government are serious about solving the housing crisis, they must give money to local authorities, housing associations and other organisations. They must reform housing finance in such a way that people can choose between renting and buying their homes. They should not feel that they must buy because if they do not they will never be able to afford a decent home. There is no flexibility between renting and buying.
In other countries, one can switch from the rented sector to owner-occupation, and then switch back again without economic hardship. That cannot be done in the United Kingdom. It is impossible for elderly people to rent accommodation because they can no longer look after their own property. The young, those on low incomes and the unemployed cannot become owner-occupiers. They have to rely on rented accommodation. That is what is wrong with this Government's housing policies. What they have done is criminal. They have destroyed what was once an improving housing market, and thereby they have destroyed the lives of many people, particularly the lives of young people who are out there with their cardboard boxes looking for somewhere to live. It is time that this House gave them somewhere to live.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates the Government on the success of its home ownership policies, enabling more people than ever before to own their own homes; notes with satisfaction the Government's proposals in the Housing Bill to encourage private renting, to expand the role of housing associations, to give council tenants the right to seek a new landlord of their choice, and to establish Housing Action Trusts to improve conditions for tenants in some of the worst council estates; deplores the incompetence displayed by some Labour housing authorities who have on the one hand condemned homeless people to bed and breakfast while they have empty council property, and on the other failed to deal with delays for existing tenants who seek to exercise their right to buy; urges the Government to press ahead with its radical reforms of the rented sector of housing in the interests both of present tenants and the homeless, and to continue to maintain a proper balance between the needs of development and the protection of the environment; and congratulates it on extending and maintaining the protection afforded by green belts round major cities.'.
There is always a ritualistic quality about these debates. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) says that everything that is happening is the fault of this Government. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) were here, he would include a wide range of subjects: the black death and other matters. If the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) were here, the three-day week would be put down to Thatcherite Britain.

That kind of approach is sad. The hon. Member for Hammersmith said nothing that went to the root of the problem.
We know where the Opposition's priorities lie. We were to have this debate last week but, much to my disappointment, it was swept aside so that Opposition Members could support the picketing in a particular industrial dispute; but, their having gone to the aid of those people, the strike rapidly collapsed, as one might have expected.
It is easy enough to apply the ritual in reverse and to show the answer to Opposition Members. A number of my hon. Friends have already pointed to the weaknesses in the arguments of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. The hon. Gentleman ended his speech with a rhetorical flourish about the worsening situation. Let him wait until the English house condition survey comes out. The Welsh house condition survey was published recently and revealed a very encouraging position, with the standard of housing improving. The difficulty for Opposition Members is that any good news is by definition bad news for them. Let us wait and see.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: No. I shall develop my argument a little further and then I shall give way to the bon. Gentleman.
It would be wise for Opposition Members to wait for the results of the English house condition survey. Its preliminary results are reasonably encouraging so they should not attach their flag too firmly to that mast. Since the Opposition left office we have managed to double in real terms improvement grants to the private sector, and investment in the public sector has been increased in the past three years. It will not be surprising if we find that there has been steady improvement in the underlying condition of the housing stock.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there has been a major increase in home ownership in this country. He belittled that and likened it to Bangladesh. I do not see the logic of his argument. It is clear—and every poll has always shown it—that the majority of people wish to own their own homes. I should have thought that hon. Members would agree that it was a good thing that 2·5 million more people own homes now than under the Labour Government. The proportion has gone up from 47 per cent. to 66 per cent. and includes 1 million council tenants. That is no matter for apology.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith talked about first-time buyers. He said that people are building houses and no one will buy them. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. People will buy them. As I have said, in the first quarter of this year more than half the houses sold—285,000—were bought by first-time buyers. Last year, there was a record number of new, first-time buyers. The hon. Member for Hammersmith was quite wrong to say that first-time buyers are excluded from those markets.

Mr. Heffer: The Minister said that surveys and polls show that the majority of people would like to own their


own houses. I do not disagree with that one bit. Ordinary people in this country always like to own their own houses, but thousands, if not millions, of people are in no position to buy their own homes. Although some people are getting the opportunity to buy their own homes—incidentally at tremendous cost and with astronomical mortgage repayments—basically, it is the yuppies who are buying new homes, particularly in London and along Canary Wharf which is about to be developed. What about those who cannot buy their own homes? The Government are putting local authorities in such a position that, increasingly, they cannot provide houses for such people. That is the real sadness.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is a good thing that many more people are able to own their own homes under this Government than under the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported. Some 2·5 million more people are now able to own their own homes and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
There is a variety of ownership. Recently, I had the privilege of visiting the Eldonian co-operative in Liverpool, which the hon. Gentleman will know very well. It was delighted to have escaped from being a tenant of the Liverpool council. It urged us to transfer the freehold of its property to the urban development corporation so that the co-operative could go ahead. We are supporting a variety of different types of ownership.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) reminded the hon. Member for Hammersmith that total starts are running at a very good rate. In the first quarter of this year there were 215,000 new starts. The hon. Member for Hammersmith does not realise that when a house is built and sold into the market another house somewhere else is released. Without those 215,000 houses being built, prices would be even higher and first-time buyers would be in real difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman made a moving plea for speeding the planning and building of more houses. I am with him in that so long as he is with us in maintaining our commitment to the green belt, which has doubled, in encouraging and further developing the process which has led to 55 per cent. of all building in the south-east being on recycled land, and in slowing down the rate of the loss of agricultural land from what it was under the Labour Government. It is now running at about a third of what it was in the 1960s and 1970s. Of course we can and will do more in that respect. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the direction of policy and therefore the establishment of the urban development corporations, which are helping to bring forward recycled land.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister said that, although houses costing £150,000 may seem out of reach to the first-time buyer, they create a vacancy lower down the system as a well-off person buys a house for £150,000. Does he agree that during a period of intense shortages of carpenters, bricklayers and plasterers, houses built predominantly in the £150,000 to £250,000 price range use the scarce supply of bricklayers and carpenters who might otherwise be building houses for social need? That would be a balanced approach to housing, for which we aim, and for which the Government do not.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman sings a different tune from that which his party normally sings, which is that we should greatly expand the amount of construction to cut unemployment in the construction industry. Perhaps he should get his act together. Houses costing £150,000 are not being sold to first-time buyers. Houses costing between £30,000 and £40,000 are now being built for first-time buyers and are within their reach.

Mr. Soley: rose——

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Paul Boateng: rose——

Mr. Waldegrave: I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Hammersmith first.

Mr. Soley: The Minister is skating around the problem. I shall give him credit for knowing that the problem in the south-east is the lack of low-cost rented accommodation. He has to address himself to my comments about house prices in Dorset, and to the problem of some villages in north Cornwall, as censuses have revealed that 70 per cent. of those villages are empty for most of the year due to the second homes issue. The Minister talked about rhetoric. I have offered him the opportunity to talk about reforming housing finance, which will go a long way to resolving that problem. Will he accept that offer?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman must sort out his own ideas. In the past few weeks I have seen a number of corrections by him in newspapers as to what he is proposing. Is he proposing simply an additional £4·5 billion, which is the amount of mortgage interest relief? If he is, the problem mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will become still more acute.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Boateng: rose——

Mr. Waldegrave: I cannot fail to give way to that duo.

Mr. Banks: Both together?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It must be one at a time, but which one?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is a judgment of Solomon. I give way to the ex-Whip.

Mr. Banks: Will the Minister tell me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) exactly where in the south-east, and London in particular, a new house can be purchased for £30,000 to £40,000?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am well aware that in London such a house would be extremely difficult to find, if it could be found at all. I refer to the average prices nationally. Of course they are very much higher in London.

Mr. Boateng: Will the Minister tell us what proposals he or his Department have to assist local authorities in London with the problems of first-time buyers and to restore the assistance that they were able to provide to first-time buyers prior to 1979 so that people can afford low-cost housing in London, especially at the current high rates of that so-called low-cost housing?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall come in a moment to the improvements that we might seek in the use of the huge local authority stock in London to bring help to the people


about whom the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is concerned. I am delighted that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) large areas of land are now being brought forward for development by the local authorities and the London Docklands development corporation, on whose land considerable numbers of cheaper and subsidised rented houses are being offered. I shall return to the use of the stock in a moment.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith and I disagree not about whether a minority of our people are being failed by the system but about the right response to that problem. Broadly speaking, the Opposition say that we should deal with the failures of the system—which means that too many people are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, or homeless—simply by going on with the system as it always was. I do not believe that that is the right response. It is a scandal that we have 10,000 families in bed and breakfast. That is why I have announced today the allocation of the latest tranche of money—I hope that there will be more—to help get some of them out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
Are we saying that, although we have 4·5 million council properties, we cannot run the system flexibly and efficiently enough to find those 10,000 families proper homes? I simply do not believe it. There is £9·5 billion-worth of support for poor people's housing. That is more than twice as much as mortgage interest relief. It behoves the House to examine how we use such enormous sums of money.
The London borough of Southwark takes about 24 weeks to let a flat or house. If it reduced that length of time just to the average—if it were no better than the average—the equivalent of another 1,800 properties to let would be produced. I doubt whether the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will disagree with me about this. That figure just happens to be a little more than Southwark's bed-and-breakfast list. If, therefore, it could manage its property properly, it could solve the problem now. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about repairs?"]. If it collected its rents, Southwark would have plenty of money for repairs.
The Audit Commission recently calculated that if we could achieve a little improvement in the re-let period—not anything dramatic—we would have the equivalent of another 20,000 re-lets annually. There are 100,000 empty council properties, 20,000 of them in London. There is complete chaos in the management of many local authorities, which have the task of helping some of the most vulnerable people.
A puzzled Councillor King—he sounds a reasonable fellow—who is the successor to the hon. Member for Tottenham in Haringey, said recently that, although the housing department there was
stuffed to the gunwales with party members and sympathetic workers it has proved incapable of tackling the basic problems of 1000s of tenants.
Some of my hon. Friends might think that Councillor King's views show cause and effect.
Tenants' leaders in Lambeth recently looked at that borough's accounts, and said:
What we have seen from a brief glimpse of the books is akin to lifting the lid on a Pandora's Box of gross inefficiency and mismanagement.
A major survey, which nobody has challenged, has shown that more than half the people who are alleged to he in need of council housing are not.

Mr. Peter Shore: What has the Minister to say about a council such as Tower Hamlets, which has several hundred homeless families, many of them in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and which has recently decided that some 50 or more families are intentionally homeless because they came from Bangladesh, leaving property which they had previously occupied there? Does he accept Tower Hamlets council's excuse that it is following this admittedly savage policy in relation to homeless people on the grounds that it is not getting sufficient Government money to convert property and make it available to those families, or does he think that the council is behaving irresponsibly and without regard to its duties as a housing authority?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that. The right hon. Gentleman and I have followed this matter and we have discussed it with people who are interested in the problem. Tower Hamlets borough council has tried to clarify the law through the courts. By chance, my officials are meeting officials of Tower Hamlets this afternoon to discuss what happens next. I am not sure that I think it fair to describe the officers and elected members of that borough as the right hon. Gentleman has described them, although I could detail plenty of improvements that I would like the council to make in its housing management.

Mr. John Battle: Before the Minister gave way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), he claimed that waiting lists are grossly overestimated. He made the same claim some months ago. In Leeds, the figures are collected quarterly and registered daily. How was the evidence behind the Minister's claim put together, or is he simply suggesting that a statistical exercise in his Department is now getting rid of the reality of homelessness in our cities?

Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Gentleman has another look at the press notice, he will see that it directs him to a major piece of research, which is in the Library, and which is the first in-depth survey of how waiting lists are managed. It was carried out by people quite independent of my Department, under contract. It was found that a huge range of methods are employed to keep waiting lists. People involved in housing, as the hon. Member has been, will be aware of that fact. The survey found incontrovertible evidence to suggest that the figures do not mean what they seem to mean.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I sat for eight years on a London borough housing committee. The Labour-controlled council refused during that time to review the waiting list although anybody could put their name on it. At the end of that time, it was reckoned that about 60 per cent. of those who had put their name down did not live in the borough.

Mr. Waldegrave: One thing that the research discovered was that, if a council offered a house or flat to people on the waiting list, some of those people could not be contacted.
All the indicators show that, to the despair of the Opposition, there is a slow but steady improvement in housing and that the great majority of the nation is well housed. The argument between us is whether it is best to deal with those whom the present system has let down


simply by providing more resources for the organisations that I have just mentioned, or whether we have to develop some new policies.
Conservative Members have been waiting with excitement for the new Labour policies. We are aware that a major operation is going on in terms of reforming Labour policies. Nothing is more convenient for a Government than to have an Opposition which is producing good clothes that we can steal. That is how Governments have always proceeded. We await the work of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) attentively. I am afraid that our hopes will be set at naught. I am trying as best I can to keep up with the work of the Labour party, and I read recently in the New Statesman that its view of the work is that:
Vacuity, if not a political philosophy, is certainly espoused as a neo-political style".
Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) seems, after labouring for a year, to have produced a mouse. It seems that we cannot look for much help there.
There is simply no point in piling money into the Councillor Kings and the Lambeth councils of the world, because they could not spend it effectively. We are therefore trying, by agreement with local authorities that will co-operate—through Estate Action and the priority estate programme, for example—to target resources that work well. We are setting in train a range of improvements on some of the worst council estates. I am aware, however, that that type of activity and targeting money on those in crisis most urgently—for whom I have announced money today—will not solve the failures of the system that produces those symptoms. The underlying problem is that we have managed, almost uniquely in Europe, to drive investment out of the private rented sector. That is why we are bringing forward measures in the Housing Bill——

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: No. I have given way a great deal. Hon. Members will no doubt have an opportunity to make their own speeches.
We are bringing forward reforms to the Rent Acts which will bring back a reasonable private rented sector. With the business expansion scheme, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done exactly what the hon. Member for Hammersmith argued for—provided some fiscal equality in these matters. That is why we are bringing land back into use via the urban development corporations and why we will direct considerable resources to the housing action trusts to improve some of the worst estates. Often those estates are full of empty properties, even though some of them may be a few hundred yards from the House. Some of those estates have much empty property and that demonstrates a failure in their management and original design to produce tolerable conditions. That is why we shall be directing a large amount of our resources to getting those properties back into use.
The tenants in the subsidised rented sector need far closer involvement in the management, and preferably ownership, of their properties. Otherwise any money that is made available may well go straight down the drain.

Mr. Tony Banks: What about the private sector?

Mr. Waldegrave: There are more voids in the private sector than in the public sector and that is largely as a result of the Rent Acts and their effect on property letting.
We want an expansion in the number of housing associations because we believe that their traditions will make subsidised housing better managed. I am happy to announce today that housing association schemes, supported by local authority loans, will still be eligible for Exchequer grant under the Housing Bill.
Another article in the New Statesman—I just happened to be leafing through the copy—said that when it came to management of the countryside
Notably absent from the play of forces is the Labour Party.
On the basis of the contribution from the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I believe that there is no Opposition thinking in that respect. I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Hammersmith that he should not have to wait too long because, shortly, we shall bring before the House a Housing Bill that goes to the heart of many of the underlying problems——

Mr. Tony Banks: Where is it?

Mr. Boateng: Where is it?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Members on the very Back Benches will have the pleasure of carrying that Bill through its next stage shortly. I am pleased that they are impatient to get on with their proper work. Part of the joy will have gone because the Whip who carried the matter through so efficiently in Committee has unfortunately been compelled to resign.
We recognise the weakness in many of the present systems which are intended to bring help to those who are most vulnerable within the housing sector. We recognise that failure, but the Labour party has learnt nothing and that is why it has little to offer to this debate.

Mr. Keith Bradley: I shall be brief because I am aware that a number of hon. Members wish to participate in this debate.
I found it odd that the Minister should make jibes about the delay in holding this debate because, yet again, no date has been fixed for bringing back the Housing Bill. Is it true that the confusion that the Government have got into regarding concessions made in Committee has meant that they are unable to bring it back? Are there problems between the Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment? When are we going to have that Bill back? We would have been pleased if he had announced that today, but we heard nothing.
I spent three and a half months in Committee on the Housing Bill and I am not surprised at the delay because we witnessed the Government's utter confusion regarding housing. The proposals within that Bill have nothing to do with housing need or housing conditions.
I should like to describe the conditions in Manchester. It is a case study of the Government's record on housing people, the conditions that they must live in, and homelessness. It was an absolute surprise, if not shock, to discover in the Housing Bill—it may come back in a different form—that there was no chapter, paragraph or sentence on homelessness. The word "homelessness" did not appear in the Bill. There has been no reference to


homelessness in the Government's second flagship of housing policy. That is a mark of their commitment to housing.
A few facts and figures give a clear picture of the situation in Manchester. In 1987–88, as a result of the fine efforts of the housing department and its management in Manchester—contrary to the Minister's jibes about the efficiency of housing departments—it managed to rehouse 12,694 people compared with 10,882 in 1984–85. It has managed to reduce the waiting list from 38,266 to 32,839 in the same period. Despite the limited resources it receives, that department is trying to make an effort to manage the stock at its disposal efficiently.
The Minister has tried to cook the statistics on waiting lists, and it is important to look behind the rehousing statistics to discover what is happening in Manchester. It is clear that, between 1984 and 1988, the number of homeless families in temporary accommodation has risen from 181 to 433. The number of homeless people who have been rehoused has risen from 907 to 1,341. Other factors that have affected people in temporary accommodation have meant that the number who have been rehoused by the housing department has increased from 379 in 1985 to 1,096 in 1988.
Those rehousing statistics show that the trend is that more and more homeless families are reliant on the local authority to rehouse them. Coupled with the increase in the number of people being rehoused, a massive extra demand for housing has been placed upon the local authorities by homeless families. Manchester is successfully tackling that problem.
In Manchester, however, there are other indicators of unmet social need. The number of households now requiring accommodation has increased, as has the number of second-generation families requiring to be rehoused locally. The number of elderly people requiring decent units of accommodation locally has also increased and that would free their current houses for the second-generation families and others. What has been the Government's response? In this context it is important to consider the private rented sector. A survey undertaken last year by the research section of the Manchester housing department gives a clear picture of the situation. It shows that in the private sector there are 3,150 unfit dwellings, 3,620 dwellings that lack basic amenities and 8,740 properties in urgent need of renovation.
I was absolutely amazed to hear the Minister say that improvement grants have been increased. In Manchester, those grants have been squeezed. The survey showed that there are 3,000 applicants waiting for improvement grant—3,000 families are waiting to do up their properties. They are already aware that the chances of receiving an improvement grant have been minimised.
I am reminded of a public meeting that I attended about the Housing Bill. The leader of the Tories, Councillor Joyce Hill, said that the Housing Bill was about three important issues. First, she said, it intended to ensure that all families had security of tenure. That is wrong; it is about insecurity and about doing away with security of tenure. She said that it would ensure that fair rents would continue in the public and private sectors. That is wrong; fair rents are being abandoned for market rents. She also said that the important thing about the Housing Bill was that it ensured that everyone would have an improvement grant when they needed it. That is wrong; improvement grants are not even mentioned in the Bill. That is what the

leader of the Tories in Manchester had to say—she could not even read a brief from Tory Central Office when she was standing on a public platform.
What has been the Government's response to housing need in Manchester? Let us consider the housing investment programme. I was staggered when I thought I heard the Minister say—he can correct me if I am wrong—that housing investment programmes for cities such as Manchester have increased. Let us consider the figures. In 1979, when the Government came to office, the H IP allocation for Manchester was £65 million. Today, that allocation is a miserly £28·8 million.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has abused a Conservative councillor for not reading out something right. Would he care to comment on the fact that Manchester city council has spent a lot of ratepayers' money on a leaflet that says that if tenants transfer under the right to transfer, they will lose their right to buy? If those tenants read the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman has done, they will see that that claim is false.

Mr. Bradley: It is rich for a Minister to talk about leaflets being sent out by a city council when the Government are not prepared to answer the question about how much they are spending on political propaganda and on supporting private developers going around cities such as Manchester to try to fiddle people out of their home in advance of the Housing Bill.
In real terms in Manchester, since the Government came into office, the housing investment programme has been cut by a staggering 350 per cent. If in real terms we had the same amount of money available as we had under the previous Labour Government, we should be receiving £129·65 million. Instead, as I have said, we are receiving a paltry £28·8 million and that has to be used to try to bolster the conditions in which people live in Manchester.
Manchester undertook a massive survey of its own stock and produced its housing defects report. It found that it needed a minimum of £600 million to be spent on housing stock just to repair the defects that already exist. If we had a five-year programme in Manchester and the Government committed themselves to properly funding the housing in a city such as Manchester, we would be able to repair the 46,000 traditional dwellings needing improvement and we would be able to spend money on the 12,500 non-traditional dwellings in urgent need of repair.
If we had such a programme, we would be able to spend money on the 118 tower blocks needing re-cladding, re-roofing, heating improvements and security systems. In my constituency of Withington we would be able to undertake a modernisation programme on the 9,000 inter-war houses that desperately need to be modernised so that people can live in decent conditions.
We have estimated that, if the Government would put public money, as they should, into our housing stock, it would not only improve the conditions in which people live, but would create jobs. If we had a five-year rolling programme in Manchester, thousands of jobs would be created not only on building sites and in the construction industry but in related industries. Our survey entitled "Jobs, Homes and a Future" emphasises the need to bring employment into cities such as Manchester and public sector investment would bring that about.
The Government's response has been to cut housing benefit, so reducing the amount of money people can


spend on their housing. We estimate that in Manchester over £15 million will be lost in housing benefit to people in desperate need. As a result of the Government's Housing Bill, housing is high on the political agenda. I do not think that it is any coincidence in Manchester that we had sweeping victories in the local elections and for once housing was an issue on people's lips as they went into the polling stations. They see that there is no answer to the housing needs of people in Manchester by selling off their houses to private developers; selling off their needs and their children's needs.
It is no coincidence that, over the period of the Housing Bill, the number of people who have put in right-to-buy applications has increased massively. When we talk to those people about their applications, we find that they have put them in not because they want to become owner-occupiers but because it is the only way they can see of securing a future for their families. They are scared that their rights will be taken away by the Bill and they feel that the only way to protect those rights is to put in a right-to-buy application before that draconian Bill becomes law.

Mr. Squire: Will the hon. Gentleman assure me that, when he meets constituents who express that fear, he points out that as long as each and every one of those people wants to remain a tenant, nothing in the Housing Bill can deprive them of that?

Mr. Bradley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do everything possible to tell applicants exactly what the current position is under the Housing Bill. However, because the Bill has not come back to the House, we do not know exactly what the legislation will be. When the Bill comes back, we will be able to tell them exactly what the facts are.
I should like to give an example of what is happening in Manchester as a result of the Housing Bill. As I have said, people are scared into taking out right-to-buy applications and are being pressurised by unscrupulous property developers who are going around the estates with glossy magazines about what they can offer. Manchester may be trying to counteract that with its leaflet, but that is nothing compared with the millions of pounds that will be invested by private developers.
There is a firm in Manchester called Home Owners which we have caught on video going round offering deals to prospective buyers. It is offering central heating, double glazing and new kitchens and it is offering to consolidate rent arrears. It is offering all that with mortgage tax relief. In order to obtain the package in advance of the Housing Bill, it is offering endowment insurance schemes and giving applicants seven days to make a decision. Those people sign the forms for seven days and, even if they do not go ahead with the purchase of their property, they still have to have the insurance scheme. That is what is happening as a result of the Government's policy. The Government should be looking at the needs of local people.

Mr. Waldegrave: The solution to the problem that the hon. Gentleman has indentified lies in his own hands. It has been created by Manchester city council saying that people would lose their right to buy if their property was transferred under tenants' choice. That is not the case.

Mr. Bradley: Clearly, the Minister has no understanding of what is going on in council estates. I am surprised at that because he went to Manchester—although he did not offer to meet the local Members of Parliament—to discuss housing action trusts with the tenants. I should have thought that he would understand the needs of Manchester a little better now that he has been to see what a tenant looks like and what a council estate in Manchester looks like.
The purpose of our motion is to place some emphasis on the needs of low earners and the needs and rights of people to have a decent home. That is what the Labour party is about.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House of Mr. Speaker's appeal for brief speeches.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I have listened with interest to the speeches. I was always taught not to criticise unless I could do better. If Labour Members used the same criterion, today's short debate would have been even shorter.
The criticisms and condemnations of Government policies made by Labour Members will be greeted with some disbelief in my constituency, where housing is still one of our most serious problems. However, there is recognition of what the Government have achieved. My constituents are aware that in 1978, under a Labour Government, the borough council was able to spend £228,000 per year on improvement grants. Under this Government, we have spent £1,800,000 per year. In an area with 80 per cent. owner-occupation, I would be the first to say that that is still not enough, but it is clearly a vast improvement on the record of the previous Government.
The neighbourhood revitalisation scheme to be launched in Accrington next week is another initiative supported by the Government. It will be of immense help in tackling the housing problems we have faced for so long. We have also seen a welcome increase in the involvement of housing associations, with splendid new developments for old people in Accrington, Oswaldtwistle and Great Harwood. There is also good news for our council estates. We have seen estates such as Huncoat and Fern Gore, neglected and virtually abandoned by Labour Governments and Labour councils, undergo a £1·5 million transformation thanks to a Conservative housing chairman and the Government's priority estates programme and Estate Action projects.
I am well aware that in Hyndburn there is still much to do in private sector housing and on council estates, not least the Fields Bottom estate at Clayton-le-Moors, where there are problems similar to those tackled at Huncoat and Fern Gore. However, I am optimistic that the problems will be dealt with. On two visits to north-east Lancashire, the Minister has impressed even his political opponents with his enthusiasm, knowledge and understanding of all that needs to be done.
Even the editorial in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph,which is not usually over-enthusiastic about most aspects of Government policy or about the Ministers involved, felt able to pay a glowing tribute to the Minister


after his recent visit to Blackburn. In Hyndburn, maintaining our 80 per cent. owner-occupation is the major task. I hope that it will be possible to reform and improve the home improvement grant system so that a positive contribution is made to improving our private sector stock. Provision of financial aid is required, not only where it is needed, but where it can most effectively be used. The lessons of the pre-1979 period need to be fully considered before introducing new legislation.
It is pleasing that the Government's policy to extend owner-occupation has been so successful, but that in itself does not improve the condition of housing. With the increase of owner-occupation, it is now more important than ever that information about the repair and maintenance needs of housing should be available and promoted. The National Home Improvement Council has made a significant contribution, but much more needs to be done to get the message across to every householder.
Many home owners cannot afford to keep their houses in good condition, and need assistance. Home improvement grants need to be made available to selected home owners in such a way as to assist householders in need and improve housing stock at the same time.
I welcome the Government's support for the care and repair schemes and the neighbourhood revitalisation services scheme, but those need to be extended, and encouragement must be given to building societies and other financial institutions to develop lending packages to assist owners with repairs, maintenance and improvement.
Although I am concerned about improvement grants for home owners, I am equally concerned about people who do not have a home to improve. In England alone, there are, as we have heard, more than 100,000 families who do not have a home. On 30 March, I introduced the Empty Property and Community Aid Bill, which would require local authorities to take steps to identify empty properties and put them to use. We must act to end the scandal of empty properties in public and private sectors.
To have so many properties empty, often for many years, when so many families are living in bed-and-break-fast accommodation in which family life is impossible is not acceptable. My Bill has the support of hon. Members of all parties and it would make a real contribution to improving the availability of houses for homeless people I hope that the Government will feel able to support it as an extension of their own proposals to deal with empty local authority properties.
St. Augustine once prayed that God would make him pure—but not just yet. I wish the Minister well, and hope that he will move on to higher office—but not just yet; not until he has put into full operation the policies for which he sees a clear need——

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Mr. Hargreaves: —to deal with the problems that need tackling in north-east Lancashire. I hope that he will not go until he has introduced policies that will build on the successes that have already been achieved—successes which are self-evident to all who live in my area and which make nonsense of so many of the Opposition's arguments this afternoon.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) spoke

about a great Churchman. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, the Churches seem to be in conflict with the Government these days. He rightly said that they, perhaps, know more about the social problems of the country than the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
I note that all Scottish hon. Members have been sent a letter by the secretary of the Committee on Church and Nation of the Church of Scotland, telling us that the committee has completed an independent inquiry into Scottish housing. I hope that the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will take note of that inquiry.
The Minister spoke of the great success of the sale of council houses. His right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland goes on television to tell us that he was right because everyone is now buying council houses. I know of people in Glasgow who go around selling cut-price whisky and no questions are asked about where they got it from. Just because everyone buys that cut-price whisky does not mean that they are right to sell it. The same goes for the deal upon which the Tories are embarking with the sale of council houses. They have dishonestly given people the chance to buy those houses without a thought for the people who are falling behind. A woman came to my surgery and told me that it was ridiculous, but her daughter could not get a council house, and asked me what the Glasgow district council was playing at. I told her that she had bought her council house, as had her sister two doors down—not to mention the neighbour in between. So, I asked, what chance was there for her daughter to obtain a council house if everyone in the area in which she wanted a house had bought one——

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: rose——

Mr. Martin: I shall not give way; the hon. Gentleman has intervened on several occasions.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that there are empty houses in Glasgow that the young girl I have mentioned could get. But the Minister knows well that that is misleading, because people in Glasgow and other parts of the country rightly want to stay in the communities in which they were brought up—they do not want to move to other parts of the city. I am not against the sale of council houses but the Government policy of not replenishing the housing stock is breaking up communities, and I am against that. The party of law and order should know that law and order was maintained when granny stayed up the next close and auntie was there to watch the child if the mother had to go on a message or was out at work.
I pay tribute to what the voluntary associations are doing for the homeless. I have a brother who works down here in London with the Simon Community and who takes a great deal of interest in the homeless of London. It saddens me every time I go north on the sleeper from Euston to see the many down-and-outs—a sad name—hanging around that station. Many of them are Scots men and women and people from the north who came to this city looking for work. Every time I speak to voluntary associations—the Salvation Army, the Churches and many other organisations that do commendable work which is appreciated by Ministers and Back Benchers alike—their representatives say that they could do with more help from the Government. I hope the Government bear


that in mind. Every week, every year, that the divide between the wealthy south and the ever-poorer north grows wider, more people will come to the city and live——

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whereas the English Housing Bill is apparently in suspended animation and has been out of sight between Committee and Report for some months now, the Housing (Scotland) Bill is through its Report stage and in the House of Lords? We have been given to understand that there is to be some special deal for housing associations in England. Would it not be outrageous if the English housing association movement got concessions from the Government but its Scottish counterpart were deprived of such benefits?

Mr. Martin: I know the work of the Scottish housing associations far better than that of the associations south of the border, and I think that that would be sad.
With a few other hon. Members, I went on a trip down the River Thames last week. The aim of the trip was not to look at housing, but we had an opportunity to see the work being done and the development in the London docklands on both sides of the river. Anyone interested in housing must say that it is a pleasant and impressive development, but it highlights what my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said about the problems of affluence in this city. Perhaps London Members will mention this. I know, looking at the property and the advertisements in The Times, that no young couple, even those on the average skilled wage, could afford a flat in that development, which stretches for miles. If the Minister does not address himself to that problem in London——

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a matter of concern. I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the fact that about one fifth of all housing in the docklands area is broadly social, subsidised housing, which is helpful.

Mr. Martin: I am glad to hear the Minister say that. The test of whether that will help the communities in those areas will be if, in four or five years' time, the Minister and I can go back and see the properties still in the hands of the young couples who acquired them through those subsidies.
I have only two other points to make, because I know that colleagues wish to speak. First, I see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for housing, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is on the Government Front Bench. I should like to address my remarks to him. I have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the rent and rate rebate system. I am appalled at the stories that I am hearing at my surgeries. An elderly gentleman came to see me. Two months ago, with the rebate system, he was paying a total of £9 a month. He has now received a bill for £119 a month. That is related to the fact that he gets a small pension for industrial deafness. It is small wonder that, faced with a bill of £119 a month, he took a shock and had to be taken to hospital.
The average tenant whom I see has to find another £30 a month this month in rent and rates. There is something

Wrong. I hope that the Minister will examine that. I remember that when the famous Rent Act 1974 was introduced the Tory Government's argument was that anyone in difficult circumstances did not need to worry because there was a rent and rebate system to protect the weak and the poor in our society. I want to see that protection for my constituents.
Finally, I refer to the voluntary housing associations. On Friday I looked at an impressive scheme in my constituency, known as Thomson street school, in the east end of the city. The school was closed down because of a shortage of pupils and now there is a beautiful housing complex for disabled people on the ground floor and families above. The associations are worried. After all the work that they put in, in four or five years' time, those houses could be in private hands and the associations could have no control or input.
I hope that the Minister will look at the points that I have raised.

Mr. Ian Gow: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) seemed to be in a state of some confusion about the right-to-buy policy introduced by the Government in the Housing Act 1980. He started his speech by complaining about three houses in his constituency which were previously owned by the council, and which, as a result of the right-to-buy policy, had been bought by the former tenants, yet the hon. Gentleman, who criticised the purchase of those three houses by his constituents, went on to affirm his belief in the right to buy. He said almost in the same sentence that it was the fact that those three houses had been bought that had denied another of his constituents the right to be a tenant. There is still much confusion within and without the House about the consequences of the right to buy.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I should like to make one thing clear. The point that I was trying to make is that there should be the right to buy, provided that the Government assist in replenishing the stock.

Mr. Gow: But those three houses that were bought by the former tenants, all of them the hon. Gentleman's constituents, are still there. If those former tenants had not bought those houses, the chances are that the tenants would have remained there and the prospects of the hon. Gentleman's other constituents finding a tenancy would have been neither improved nor impeded whether or not that sale had taken place.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on selecting the subject of housing for today's debate. He will not misunderstand me when I say that I wished that he had been able to secure not a three-hour but a six-hour debate for the subject. It is common knowledge—this at least unites both sides of the House—that many hon. Members would like to take part, but time will not allow.
I want to address myself to one aspect only of the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Minister. I think that it is a common view that, although in Britain today the overwhelming majority of our people are better housed than ever before, nevertheless, both the motion and the amendment refer to homelessness and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I believe, and I make my own


confession of error, that those at the very bottom of the pile to whom the hon. Gentleman refers in his motion and to whom my hon. Friend refers in the amendment—the homeless and those who are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation—represent a continuing scandal. I say this to my hon. Friend: the paradox of a greater supply of houses than of households, even though the empty houses are not always in the places where the homeless are, should be a continuing source of concern for the House.
I should like to talk particularly about London because it is in London that the problem is most acute. When I held the office now held by my hon. Friend the Minister, I made a journey in the company of Mr. Reginald Freeson, the predecessor of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), to look at some of the bed-and-breakfast hotels. Some of those so-called hotels are a rip-off of the taxpayer and the ratepayer and provide appalling accommodation for those who live there. I underline the word "some".
It is wholly unsatisfactory that in London houses and flats owned by local authorities stand empty while people have to live in wholly unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast accommodation. If almost all the people living in the worst type of bed-and-breakfast accommodation—sometimes mum and dad and two or three or even four kids living in a single room—were offered the choice between remaining there or moving to a house or flat, they would prefer to move. They would exercise that choice even if the house or flat were not in good repair. It is a continuing indictment of some local authorities in London that that truth has not been understood.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith and other Opposition Members have understandably said that part of the reason for 20,000 empty houses and flats in London is bad repair. Even if I accepted that argument, I would still assert that many people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation would infinitely prefer to live in houses and flats that are not in good repair. The cost of keeping individuals or families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is in many cases outrageous. I repeat that that is a rip-off of taxpayers and ratepayers. In addition, void properties accelerate the opportunity for vandalism and mean that no rent or rates are being paid.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Would the hon. Gentleman apply the same strictures to empty private sector houses?

Mr. Gow: Among the evils that the Housing Bill seeks to address is the scandal of empty private sector houses and flats. It may not be morally right, but it is legitimate for any man to do what he will with his own. We are trustees in the public sector and have a different obligation. I am not talking about morality.
I shall give the hon. Gentleman an illustration. It is legitimate for him to leave the electric light in his house on all day if he wishes. By doing that, he is wasting his own money. In the case of public assets, whether in the sphere of central or local government, we are the trustees. I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's central point.

Mr. Soley: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps some Front Bench interventions could be held back until we come to the winding-up speeches.

Mr. Soley: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would the hon. Gentleman direct his comments to the

Government sector, which has 6·9 per cent. of empties? Before he moves from this important point, will he bear in mind the fact that, before the Labour Government left office, there were hardly any families in bed and breakfast but that now in Labour, Tory and Liberal boroughs there are literally hundreds of people in such accommodation? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why that should be so?

Mr. Gow: I do not defend, nor could anyone honourably defend, a situation in which houses and flats owned by the Government are empty. There have never been so many empty local authority houses and flats in London. It is to that matter that I am directing my speech.
A long time is elapsing between the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Housing Bill and its return to the House on Report. The Minister's officials or the heroes who toil away drafting legislation could utilise that time to include two, three or four clauses in my hon. Friend's excellent Housing Bill that would apply pressure upon local authorities—especially, but not exclusively, in London—to bring unused. accommodation into use. That would do much to diminish the number of families living in totally unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Such clauses would command the enthusiastic approval of all hon. Members.

Mr. George Howarth: While listening to the Minister, I was reminded of a quote by no less a person than Zsa Zsa Gabor. She was asked for her comments about the condom and said that she was inclined to say that it all depended on what was in it for her. That seems to be the case with housing policy. No matter from what angle it is viewed, everybody seems to be concerned about what is in it for him.
We all seem to be missing the point about housing; the Government are certainly missing it. In Britain, probably more than in any country in the Western world. the access to decent quality housing depends almost entirely on one's wealth, income and social class. It is worth spending some time looking at the results of that. Some people who are lucky enough to be housed in rented accommodation are forced to live in almost ghetto conditions. Perhaps the standard and size of the property is an improvement on what a family had before, but in some ways it may he compared to a house in a ghetto of the 19th century.
Hon. Members have talked about homelessness steadily rising over a substantial part of this decade. I welcome the Minister's announcement of some new initiatives and resources; I am sure that we all welcome that. The Government have now been in power for almost a decade and all the problems of homelessness cannot be laid at the door of Labour or Liberal councils or anybody else. The problem of homelessness has increased under the Government and they have taken only small and insignificant steps to resolve it.
There has been a great deal of talk, especially by the Minister, about the use of resources and about who will benefit from the Housing Bill. Let us spend a little time examining the Government's recent record. We support owner-occupiers as much as anybody else does. About £5 million is currently spent subsidising people who are very often the people who least need that subsidy. At the same time, housing benefit to the least well-off or to people just above that level has been cut. That is a paradox, yet the Government and their supporters somehow seem to


square that circle. Hon. Members must have had sackloads of letters from constituents explaining the difficulties that they have had as a result of the loss of housing benefit since April. These two factors co-exist—mortgage tax relief seems to grow without check, while the Government are happy to reduce the subsidy available to the least well-off.
The Housing Bill will shortly return to the House. I felt that some of the measures in it were worthy of discussion, and I spent three and a half months in Committee being willing to discuss them. However, on reflection, I feel that there is something inherently dishonest about that Bill. It is that the Government know, the Minister knows—although I suspect that the Secretary of State is so cocooned in an ideological straitjacket that he probably is not aware of it—all the officials who advise the Minister know, most serious commentators in the press know, and all the experts in the academic world and the great institutions involved in housing know that the Housing Bill will not make much difference at all. Areas such as my constituency, others in the north and all areas with severe urban deprivation, which is reflected in housing, will not be affected by the Housing Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: It will make matters worse.

Mr. Howarth: I do not know that that is so. Sensible tenants may say they do not want to get involved in any pick-a-landlord scheme, so it will make no difference to them. Unless resources are directed through the local authorities, those estates will continue to decline, and the tenants will know that without more resources, going to a private landlord will make no difference.

Mr. Corbyn: When a group of tenants on an estate near the City of London or an area of housing crisis are hoodwinked into allowing tenancies to be transferred, will that not be a setback in the long run, because it will take housing from the working-class people for whom it was built in the first place?

Mr. Howarth: I could not disagree with that.
The Minister and his colleagues have made great play of the use of housing action trusts, of which it is proposed that there will be 10. The Minister will be aware that I have the forerunner of a HAT in my constituency—the Stockbridge village trust. I have taken a great deal of care not to criticise the trust. I hope that it will work, because for many people the prospect of decent housing depends upon it. However, as Ministers may be aware, it has not been a great success. Part of the reasoning behind the building of Stockbridge village and the setting up of HATs is that they will uplift areas and ensure a greater mix. For example, if some spare land is left over, private developers can build houses for owner-occupation. However, Barratt built some houses three or four years ago in Blackthorne crescent in Stockbridge village, with a purchase price of £22,500. I understand that a developer is now offering the Abbey National building society, which owns them, £5,000 a unit, so that cannot be said to be a great success.
The Stockbridge village trust has not succeeded in making owner-occupation attractive. I suspect that if areas of the greatest deprivation are chosen for HATs, that will ensure they are not a success. We are dealing with a

phenomenon that is not entirely the responsibility of councils or to do with rented houses—it is to do with the local economy.
In the Committee that considered the Housing Bill, I tried to promote a consensus of support, from hon. Members on both sides of Committee, for housing co-operatives. One product of the Bill is the use of private finance in a system of flexible housing association grants. I know that the intention is to increase the supply of houses in the housing association sector, but when that is applied in an area with low values and high costs—and one or both of those problems applies in most areas—the net effect is that the housing co-operatives and housing associations will have to do package deals with construction companies, cutting out the architect. Those package deals lead to system building, a problem on many housing estates. It is ironic that housing co-operatives, which the Minister and others support, may be killed off by the application of private finance.
The Housing Bill will not work, and the Minister knows it. He knows too that the Government's housing policies are not working. The civil servants know it, the academics and housing experts know it. I suspect that the Secretary of State does not know it, and that the Minister, who is a nice chap who tries to build up his role as the acceptable face of the Department of the Environment, will not escape criticism, because there is a housing crisis. It is an intellectual crisis for the Secretary of State, but a human crisis for thousands of people.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I hope that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) will forgive me if I do not pursue most of the points that he made. However, I was disappointed, as I am sure that the House was, that he did not pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who announced last week an additional £20 million for the housing investment programme, to go specifically to those local authorities that have within their housing stock Airey houses, Smith houses, Wates houses and other system-built houses. I place on record my gratitude and that of my constituents in the Pear Tree estate in Rugeley in the Cannock Chase district council who, through that announcement, have received a substantial sum of increased resources, which will relieve the hardship of owners and tenants on those estates. In the west midlands area in general, the Department of the Environment has announced an increase in its housing investment programme for this purpose of £4·6 million. For that, my constituents are extremely grateful.
Another form of hardship could be alleviated if only local authorities behaved more prudently and responsibly in the way that they manage their properties. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) touched specifically and in an enlightened way in his reply to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) on the difference between the ethic of private ownership and the way that a private individual spends his or her money, and public ownership, and the fact that local authorities, elected councillors, and Members of Parliament are custodians and trustees of the public purse. It is a scandal that local authorities have failed to collect £2·5 million in rent arrears. That is "squandermania" on an increasingly


horrible scale. Had that money been collected, it could have been recycled and spent on improving hard-to-let houses and blocks of flats.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heddle: I shall not give way because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if hon. Members follow your strictures to be brief, as I intend to do.
One form of hardship which has not yet been mentioned but is referred to in both the Opposition motion and the Government's amendment to it is the question of the ever-escalating cost of homes, particularly as it affects the first-time buyer. My hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that we said in our manifesto:
Some people are still deterred by the costs and complications of house purchase. That is why we must look for new ways to make house-buying simpler and easier.
I wish to declare a non-pecuniary interest. I have the honour to be a vice-president of the Building Societies Association. All financial institutions involved in providing money for house purchase, whether they be local, regional, national and, increasingly, international, building societies, banks and other lending institutions, have a duty to regulate the amount of money that the public can borrow and to educate them about that. Most building society posters show that the societies are prepared to lend up to four times the applicant's income. I wonder whether that is prudent and sensible in the long run and whether it is perhaps fuelling house price inflation and encouraging some people, particularly first-time buyers who have no alternative but to get on to the first rung of the ladder of home ownership, to spend more than they can afford.
In the context of the manifesto commitment to which I have just referred, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, if not on his occasion, then on a future occasion before the next Session of Parliament will bring forward legislation to reduce, if not outlaw, the dishonourable practice embodied in the horrible word gazumping—the practice of people's word no longer being their bond. I should like to put to the House four practical ways in which that practice can be reduced, if not eliminated.
First, it can be done simply by reducing the time beween the acceptance of an offer and exchange of contracts. It can be done by improving the recommendations of the Law Commission's conveyancing sub-committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Julian Farrand who suggested, in his report of January last year, that the vendor and purchaser, on agreeing a price and the terms of the transaction, should be voluntarily obliged to place half or a three quarters deposit so that, if either party withdrew from the transaction unreasonably, that deposit would be forfeited. Professor's Farrand's recommendations amount to no more than a toothless tiger, because, no vendor, while there is a buoyant housing market and, indeed, the majority of first-time buyers, because they cannot afford to do so, will want to put down such a preliminary deposit. That deposit should be made mandatory and enshrined in an Act of Parliament.
Secondly, on the acceptance of the purchaser's offer, the vendor should be obliged to produce local searches for the purchaser, thereby eliminating the necessity for solicitors to spend time and the purchaser's fees on obtaining local searches.
Thirdly, if that is not possible, I hope that my hon. Friend can be persuaded to impose upon local authorities the duty to respond to local searches within a reasonable time. In that context, the Law Commission's conveyancing sub-committee has suggested that 10 days is a reasonable time. It is, therefore, scandalous that some local authorities, such as Hackney, Islington and Tower Hamlets, take up to five or six months to respond. When I introduced an Adjournment debate on that subject two months ago, I produced heart-rending, tear-jerking letters from nurses and schoolteachers wanting to buy but who had been frustrated in their wishes because of the bureaucratic log-jam and the inability and insensitivity of some local authorities.
Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend, without having to come before the House with a Bill, will be able to impose upon a local authority the duty to computerise its search procedures. If local authorities are incapable, unable or unwilling to do so, he should encourage them to put that function and that responsibility out to the private sector. By adopting those positive, simple and straightforward proposals, the majority of first-time buyers, who at present are either being gazumped, or frustrated by local authority bureaucracy in their attempts to get on the vital first rung of home ownership, will realise their ambition and achieve their dream much sooner.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This Opposition debate is welcome and, as hon. Members will have noticed, my colleagues and I have added our names to the motion without amendment. We did that specifically to show, first, that the two main Opposition parties agree in large measure that the Government have gone wrong and, secondly, that we agree what the priorities should be. The majority of people in this country share those priorities and, together, we, the two largest Opposition parties, represent the majority of the electorate of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, we need to confirm those areas that are at the root of the housing problem, for example, the need to change the housing finance system. I am glad to see that the Labour parry now joins us in, for example, advocating a change in housing finance and recommends equal subsidy for those who rent and those who buy, as we have long advocated.
The word "homelessness" has been heard often in this debate, and rightly so. The figures give the lie to the argument that homelessness is the fault of specific local authorities. For example, in 1979 in Southwark 651 families presented themselves as homeless, but last year that figure was 1,700. In inner London in 1979 the figure was 9,610, but last year it had risen to 19,000. The figure for Greater London in 1979 was 16,650, but last year it had risen to 30,000. In 1979 the figure for England was over 50,000, but last year it had risen to over 110,000. Those figures show that it is not local authorities that have failed, but rather that the nation has failed and homelessness has increased, whoever runs the local councils.
Although I agree that by putting our empty property back into use we would go a long way towards solving the problem—I have sponsored Bills on that subject—it is not possible for Ministers to blame local authorities entirely, because the problem has grown, whichever local authorities have been responsible. The country knows that for the past nine years the Government have squeezed


local authorities in all sorts of ways, above all in the resources available to them. Of course, management by local councils must improve. My local council in Southwark has an appalling record, as have many others, but increasing homelessness is not only the responsibility or fault of local councils. Increasing unemployment over the past decade has meant that more people have been unable to keep up mortgage payments, let alone rent payments, and the drive towards home ownership has driven many people too far, such that they have had their homes repossessed.
Additional resources to help the homeless are now the priority. The Government's announcements, both last year and this year, have been welcome, but the amounts announced are a tiny proportion of what is needed and by no means make up for the 70 per cent. cut in housing investment over that time. Much of the additional cash apparently given is in fact cash which the Government announced they were giving a week or two earlier. The Government announced £25 million extra for the homeless in the Autumn Statement, but the same announcement was made in a different press release on 30 November. Another announcement was made on 3 December, but it again referred to the same money. We are not fooled by that, and nor are the homeless, because substantial numbers of them were still homeless after all those announcements.
There has been a massive increase in the number of families, including women who are expecting children and others in priority categories, who are accepted as homeless by local authorities, and there are many more single people and young people, both men and women, who are homeless on the streets. Homelessness is visibly the major housing problem of 1988. The homeless do not come only from the poor parts of Britain. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) cited Centre Point, which deals in London with some of the young homeless. The young homeless there do not come only from Ireland, Scotland and northern towns. Increasingly people from the home counties homeless in London because they cannot find housing.
It is right for criticism to be made when local authorities do not do a good job. I contend that it is entirely unacceptable that anyone should be homeless on the streets of London, including members of foreign communities such as the Bangladeshi community who come to Britain and who cannot return home without losing the immigration rights that enable them to stay here. They must be housed whether they are in Tower Hamlets or any other borough. If the responsibility for housing that group and others does not lie with the local authority, it must be a shared one with the Government.
On this subject, this is a crucial week for the Government and all local authorities, and I say that with friendship and courtesy to all those who represent the various parties in London. Now is the time when the issue of homelessness, as it especially affects members of immigrant communities, must be addressed across London and elsewhere and by all London boroughs. It is unacceptable that any group within our community should not be housed. If local authorities cannot independently of Government house the members of these

communities, the Government must find the necessary resources at the end of the day independently of local authorities, or with their support.
Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is a continuing scandal, but the responsibility for this too must not entirely be attributed to any local authority. We all have responsibility. For example, Camden's homeless persons unit was closed for several months while the unit in Tower Hamlets, was open. The way in which Lambeth dealt with homeless persons has been criticised by the ombudsman. Brent's homeless persons unit was closed for months. The use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London over the past year increased by 22 per cent. while in Tower Hamlets it decreased by 11 per cent.
As I have said, all families should be housed. We must concentrate our efforts on housing families and not on making party-political points against our colleagues in this place.

Mr. Shore: I think that the House, especially those Members who have followed the saga of the intentionally homeless, as it is alleged, of Bengali families in Tower Hamlets, will welcome the hon. Gentleman's forthright and courageous statement. Some of his colleagues in Tower Hamlets are this very week pitching out 11 families on to the streets—they are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation—who are in Britain lawfully under our immigration rules. I hope that they will heed his words carefully. I accept entirely that the problem is too large to be handled by any one council in London. The Government must provide adequate resources to deal with what is a national disgrace.

Mr. Hughes: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has specifically said that the Government must help local authorities to deal with this aspect of homelessness. I have been in consultation with my colleagues in Tower Hamlets and I believe they understand that a collaborative effort is needed. I believe, too, that they are willing to participate in that approach along with the representatives of other parties, if that is possible; so that once and for all there is no group in Britain that does not have secure accommodation because of its immigration status. I look forward to discussing the issue further later tonight with other colleagues.
The Government's response to the crisis has been to increase home ownership. The Minister referred to the great increase in first-time buyers. There has been such an increase, and many have responded to the Government's right-to-buy policy. Many of those who have taken advantage of that scheme have not been in the south-east, where many of those who wish to become first-time buyers cannot afford to buy. The right to buy has also come at a time when greenfield sites have been under pressure. It was not a shortcoming in presentation that led to the homeless not being mentioned in the Housing Bill, which we are waiting to consider again on the Floor of the House. It is a fact that developers are causing pressure to be put on land use in the south-east, at the same time as cheap rented or for sale accommodation is not being provided.
The Housing Bill is flawed in many fundamental respects. It perverts the system under which people will have a choice of remaining council tenants, by rigging the voting system. It does not come to the rescue by providing affordable rents in the social housing sector. Unless the


Government reintroduce the Housing Bill in an amended form, which includes a fair voting system for tenants and a finance system that will ensure affordable rents, they will be failing in their duty. Tenants in the area which I represent and in many others are entirely critical of these and other fundamental flaws that are to be found in the Bill.
Those in special need and the vulnerable, need housing. They do not need speeches about housing. Last weekend the Prime Minister bared her soul and revealed her personal theology in Scotland. I reflected that Christ, followed by the Salvation Army and many others ever since, thought that the best way of preaching the gospel was to act it out. The best way of dealing with the needs of Britain must be to provide practical help and support rather than preaching about self-reliance and the acquisition of more money. If the housing of the homeless and those who are in bad housing has not been a priority of the Government for the past eight years—the figures testify to this and show that there is a crisis of unparalleled proportions—that is a more powerful fact than any that can be made in a speech by a Minister, no matter how mighty she or he might be.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate briefly in the debate, especially as matters concerning both public and private housing are of great importance to my constituents. Housing is one of the major issues in Norwich.
I did not agree with every word that was uttered by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), but I accept that the party-political approach is not the best one for housing. There is a great need for constructive ideas to be advanced for the future instead of continually returning to the old party-political battle-ground. I was surprised when the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) implied that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that would be found if a Labour Government were elected. Heaven forbid!
It is clear that the hon. Member for Hammersmith has a short memory. During the period to 1979, when the Labour Government were still in power, we read of the lowest ever number of housing starts. We read also that 400,000 houses which were available to rent were lost, as it were, during the time that that Government were in office. There was a major decrease in housing improvement grants, and mortgage interest rates rose as high as 11·75 per cent. There was a fall in gross expenditure on public sector housing. To suggest that the Labour Government presided over an improvement in housing is a travesty of the truth, and every hon. Member knows that.
It is difficult to learn from the terms of the motion what the Opposition's housing policy is. That being so, I shall not refer to it. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey attached his name to it. After all, the Social and Liberal Democrats chose to ignore housing in their policy document, which was entitled "A Democracy of Conscience." It was cobbled together in about 24 hours. It appears that the hon. Gentleman was reading the Bible during the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). At least he has been searching for some inspiration for a housing policy.
The important difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Labour party still believes that the answer to the housing problem lies in massive public housing programmes. That means a vast increase in the number of council houses. That is Labour's view, fair enough, but I disagree with it.
In Norwich there is 42 per cent. public housing and 54 per cent. private housing, which means that there is a 'high proportion of council houses. The proportion is changing slowly. The amount of private housing is steadily increasing, partly because of house building by private house builders and partly because of the right to buy council houses—a policy which has an increasing influence in Norwich. In the past few months the number of council houses sold has increased remarkably. I think that I am right in saying that 3,500 council houses have been sold.
I should like to talk about the problems rather than debate the differences in philosophy between the two sides of the House. My constituency case load in Norwich, North is made up almost entirely of housing problems—for example, waiting lists, transfers and damp, which some officials would have us believe is condensation, delays to repairs, empty houses and delays and errors in dealing with right-to-buy applications. The list is endless. Housing is a major problem for my constituents. I do not approach this matter in a partisan spirit. My constituents want these problems solved. They do not particularly mind how they are solved, so long as there is some way out of their unhappy circumstances.
I believe, although the Opposition will not agree, that there are overlarge council estates. There are 22,500 council houses in Norwich——

Mr. Boateng: Not enough.

Mr. Thompson: My point is made for me. Time does not permit me to launch into a great criticism of Norwich city council, but even the most efficient housing authority would find it difficult to run a council estate operation of that size efficiently. That is why the Housing Bill is a major step forward.
Unlike the Opposition parties, which merely hark back to the past, we say that things cannot go on as they are and that we must have a change for the benefit of those who need or live in this housing. I welcome the Government's intention to take powers to compel local authorities to dispose of empty properties. Even in Norwich, which has quite a good record, more than 100 properties have been empty for more than six months. This is a major problem to which hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), have referred It is right that the Housing Bill should address that point.
There are 75,000 more houses than households in Britain. The question is how we can best match the houses that already exist with those who, we all agree, need them. Contrary to the criticisms of Labour authorities, the measures in the Housing Bill—I hope that we shall debate them soon—will help the homeless and young people, will give young people and council tenants more rights and choice and will give local residents more opportunities to be involved in decision making.

Mr. George Howarth: In what way will the Housing Bill give all these additional powers to people on council estates?

Mr. Thompson: I could speak at great length—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why give those powers?"] I shall talk at great length on why the Housing Bill will help tenants on council estates. Many of them look forward to the opportunities——

Ms. Diane Abbott (Hackey, North and Stoke Newington): Name one.

Mr. Thompson: We have been asked to make brief speeches, so I shall say only that Labour authorities, including Norwich, have been circulating leaflets which put across the kind of rubbish that we have heard from the Opposition and have been totally misleading people about the Bill's contents. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall confine myself to that comment.
Labour has claimed that the tenants' chance to opt out will offer a bonanza to property speculators, but Labour does not explain properly the role of the Housing Corporation. Every landlord will have to be approved by the corporation. Labour's leaflets do not explain the role of the Housing Corporation in supervising discussions and consultations between tenants and landlords, even during the period of the ballot. It is important to remind the House that under the Housing Bill any tenant who wishes to remain with a local authority can do so.

Mr. Allen McKay: Has the hon. Gentleman heard of estate management? If he goes to Barnsley, he will find the best estate management in the business. That was said by the Minister, who came to examine what was happening. The hon. Gentleman has talked about private landlords. I hope that he will take care to look at the position of former National Coal Board tenants who now have private landlords.

Mr. Thompson: I am interested in that remark. I am in favour of good estate management, whatever the authority.
It is unlikely that housing action trusts will be set up in Norwich in the near future, but I think that my point about them still applies. People in my constituency and Norwich city council feel that it would be a good idea if the meetings of the housing action trusts were held in public, and I agree. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of that point, which I have discussed with him, and hope that he can find time to respond as soon as possible.
There is another problem in Norwich that needs to be addressed. It is generally agreed that there is a problem with the deterioration of many houses in the private sector. Labour-controlled Norwich city council and the Government must work together to find a solution. Many of these houses are let to tenants and the condition of many is deteriorating. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that an amendment to the Housing Bill may be introduced to insist on higher standards from private landlords. I think that both sides of the House agree on this point. Anyone who drives around Norwich or any of our other great cities will be worried about the deterioration of parts of these cities and the housing stock. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address this point.
Under this Government, 2·9 million more people own their homes, including an increasing number of young people. We have improved the right-to-buy provisions. Since 1979, improvement grants have increased by 46 per

cent. We have provided more rights for council tenants. The Opposition offer only policies of more public spending, which would lead to high interest rates, which would destroy any chance of a good housing policy. We should welcome the Housing Bill as a constructive step forward. We should reject Labour's motion and support the Government's amendment.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be helpful if I say that I understand that the first of the Front Bench speakers will seek to rise at 6.30 pm. A large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and five-minute speeches would be helpful.

Mr. Barry Jones: The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) will understand why I will not follow his points.
The Opposition motion calls for
a planned programme of house building, repair and renovation.
There is a definite need in Wales for a housing strategy and a major injection of funds to sustain that strategy. There is a problem in north-west Wales in the county of Gwynydd where many houses are in a state of disrepair. There is also a totally unacceptable position in the south-eastern valleys. That has arisen because in that area there is the highest percentage of pre-1919 houses occupied by owners who frequently are the least well-off in our society.
The biggest problem in Wales involves council houses built between the two world wars, which now require the highest investment where modernisation has not been carried out. I appeal for a boost for housing expenditure in Wales. I warn the House that if the problems are not tackled and if the money is not forthcoming, slum clearance will be required at the turn of the century at the latest.
In calling for fair play, I must state that unemployment is highest and dereliction and environmental blight are at their worst in those areas with severe housing problems. The people living in those areas gave Britain great economic service delivering coal and steel when the nation needed it during the first and second world wars. In the time remaining to me, I, like other hon. Members, want to emphasise the predicaments in which my constituents find themselves with regard to housing benefit cuts.
A constituent of mine from Llay, an old mining village, has lost an estimated £18 a week as a result of the new regulations. He is a world war 2 veteran and he has a British Rail pension. I believe that he is a brave man. He served in the 4th battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers and he fought from the Normandy beaches right through to Hamburg. His family and I believe that he has been shabbily treated. The whole family are worried sick—financially—at the consequences of the proposed cut.
Another constituent has written to me as follows:
We are writing as a family to express our abhorrence of the effects of the new 'Housing Benefit' rules on our widowed mother. On a total income of £63 per week with no savings remaining, she is expected to pay £18·73 in rent, previously this was £15·73 per week … If a 72 year old widow on low income who has had two operations for cancer is not part of a priority group, we wonder who is.
Less than a fortnight ago I interviewed Mr. Tarren from Buckley who is aged 76. He has defeated cancer after a


major operation and is now in good health. However, the new regulations will deprive that cheerful battler of £80 a year in housing benefit cuts. At my constituency surgery on Saturday a 74-year-old widow told me that her income would drop by £2·44 a week as a result of the cut in housing benefit. She now lives on an income of only £44·05 a week. At the same surgery a 68-year-old man with a defective knee and a severely arthritic spine reported that he would lose £80 a year in housing benefit.
Another constituent of mine on Deeside has a mild mental handicap,. He was given a tenancy by the local housing authority under the all-Wales strategy for services to people with mental handicap. Before his tenancy, he conscientiously went on a course for two and a half years. Under the old regulations he had rent and rate rebates of £16·30 a week. Despite his mental handicap, he is now not entitled to rebate. Despite his low income, the 65 per cent. rent taper disqualifies him.
Another constituent showed me his rent book at my surgery on Saturday. His fortnightly rent and rates is now £50 instead of £6—the figure during the previous financial year. He told me that the family's diet has fallen away. They live on chipped potatoes because they are so hard-pressed.
The background to the cases that I have described is considerable unemployment, near poverty, social isolation, ill health, hopelessness, bewilderment and immobility. I report the concerns of the most vulnerable people in the fine community that I represent.
I remind the House that the Prime Minister addressed the Church of Scotland on Saturday. She adopted a high moral tone and she quoted the Bible to the assembled clerics. She held forth about money in her homily. I believe that the Prime Minister's stance is an affront to my vulnerable and honourable and respectable constituents. They have very little ready money and they suffer real hardship.
If the Prime Minister had been beside me for the four hours that my surgery lasted on Saturday, she would have felt ashamed. She might even have felt some humiliation about the predicament in which her hard policies had placed my constituents.

Mr. Robin Squire: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), who may have sacrificed his chance of speaking in this debate by allowing me to speak now.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on the wording of the Government amendment to the Opposition motion. I support the amendment and its priorities. We are coping with the self-evident consequences of a success in home ownership and it is right that accordingly we are concentrating on the rented sector. I want to refer to quality, quantity and choice in that rented sector.

Mr. Gow: Would my hon. Friend care to send a message to his noble Friend the Captain of the Gentleman-at-Arms, because over the past few moments in another place—this is most relevant to the subject of housing which occupies us today—the amendment tabled by the noble and gallant Lord Chelwood has been defeated by 317 votes for the Government to 183 votes against?

Mr. Squire: I can assume only that Opposition peers stayed away.
I want to refer to quality in the rented sector. It is a sad fact that the quality in much of the rented sector today is very bad. In referring to the rented sector I include the private rented sector and much of the council sector.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke at some length on matters about which we share common views. He would be hard put to suggest—and indeed he did not—that future investment in the rented sector should be aimed exclusively at council property. If he were to say that, he would be going against his experience in the London borough of Southwark, which experience is all too often repeated up and down the country by other local authorities and has been highlighted by the Audit Commission. It is not good enough for Opposition Members to talk as though, uniquely, the private rented sector is all bad. The fact that there is bad property in the private sector is willingly conceded by Conservative Members. We seek in return a concession that the service given to and the quality of property enjoyed by many council tenants is equally bad and requires attention.
My second point, which is about quantity, follows from the thrust of the Housing Bill. The Government expect an increase in the volume of housing that will in future be privately rented. I fully support them in that aim. It is essential that there should be some increase, on mobility grounds alone. Representing as I do an outer London constituency, I can see that there is an appalling shortage of rented property, and that view is surely shared by hon. Members for London, wherever they sit in the Chamber. One of the ways in which that shortage can be tackled is by enhancing the private rented sector, including housing associations. That is essential if we are to have normal and free movement of labour.
It is over the question of choice that the biggest divide arises between the two sides of the House. Until now there has been little argument between us about council housing. However, my hon. Friends believe that there is an advantage in offering a genuine choice to would-be tenants rather than having, as there is in most parts of the country, a near-monopoly of tenanted property owned by the local authority. Where there is a good local authority, such a monopoly will be in the interests of tenants. Sadly, in too many instances the local authority is not good and there are few alternatives, if any, from which would-be tenants may chose. Those who are looking for rented property—apart from those at the luxury end of the market—are, by definition, people who have an average or below-average income and have few, if any, alternatives. it is not open to such people to buy their way into house ownership.
London and the home counties in particular face appalling problems in staff recruitment over a wide range of employment in both the public and private sector. I refer to the public transport system, to the National Health Service, and to the catering and entertainment industries. The central reason for that is insufficient housing at an affordable price. My hon Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is aware of the problem. I have made the point to him on a number of occasions and he knows that it remains a concern of mine. Provided that we get the balance right on the very important question of housing benefit—and we await the


details of the scheme, along with others relating to the Housing Bill—the Government will be able to tackle that problem.
We must use the planning system more to achieve a proportion of social housing in most, if not all, local authority areas around London and in our other major cities. Otherwise, it will not be possible for essential workers——

Mr. Dennis Turner: rose——

Mr. Squire: In fairness, I must continue speaking because I know that there are other hon. Members wishing to contribute.
If the housing benefit scheme is unable to be of assistance, we shall need areas zoned for social housing, otherwise the people who are essential to making a big city tick will not be able to find accommodation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) mentioned the importance of using empty property. As a supporter of his original Bill, and as someone who attempted to have his proposals passed in Committee on the Housing Bill, I am a firm supporter of greater use being made of empty property.
I have made clear my support for the Government's priorities. I conclude with a comment on homelessness, because ultimately it is that which we are seeking to tackle through many of the provisions of the Housing Bill. If we can succeed in our efforts to overcome that problem, we shall ensure in a number of ways that the majority of the population, who are well housed or adequately housed, will be so aroused that they will keep up pressure on both local and national politicians to provide more housing opportunities—particularly in the rented sector.
It is in the interests of all hon. Members to press my hon. Friends the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Under-Secretary of State so that in their discussions with the Treasury—which they will undoubtedly have at regular intervals—they are both persuaded that housing is of the highest priority in our nation's affairs. If we can persuade my hon. Friends of that and can strengthen their hands in their discussions with the Treasury, the reforms, which already look encouraging, will be followed by further reforms. Above all, the conscience of that part of the nation that is well housed will be extended to the minority who are homeless or badly housed.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The Minister of State has had the bare-faced gall to come to the House and accuse Opposition Members of a so-called dearth of housing policy. That is obviously nonsense. I can tell the Minister that we shall restore the level of public spending on housing which, under the present Government, has been cut from £6·7 billion to £2·7 billion. That cut lies at the heart of the Government's failure to tackle the housing crisis.
The means by which the Minister chooses to attack this side of the House is by reference to a magazine, which he produced and showed us all, called the New Statesman—an organ that makes an intellectual contribution to the Labour party, and a very welcome one. I shall tell the Minister of a magazine that was recently drawn to my

attention. It is a glossy publication which is surprisingly well written. It deals with the fads, the fancies and the foibles of the parvenus and parasites who make up the core of the Conservative party. Lo and behold—what did I see as I sifted through that publication, between the adverts for houses which are a snip at £375,000, and for bijou flats in Wandsworth for £160,000? I saw an article about the golden boy of the Thatcherite housing policy—none other than the Minister of State himself.
When I heard the line the Minister was taking in this debate, I asked those working with me to obtain a copy of that magazine. I even provided them with a plain brown envelope so that they could do so. However, my secretary has written me a note saying, "Sorry, couldn't get one." They are sold out. So interested is the world in the Minister of State's utterances that my assistant could not obtain a single copy of that publication, which I can now name as the Tatler, within one square mile of this Palace of Westminster.
At the heart of that article, the Minister of State comments on the need for community and how housing must serve the community. Anyone hearing what he and other Conservative Members said during the course of this debate, and anyone who had to sit through hour after hour of the Housing Bill, as we had to do, knows only too well that the Government's housing policy has destroyed the sense of community in all of the constituencies we represent, and that the bed-and-breakfast population have had any possibility of a community life removed from them. In my constituency, more than 900 families are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and mine is a constituency that has been praised by the Minister of State and his chief acolyte for the advances it has made in coping with its housing crisis. The other day the Minister of State talked about us in glowing terms. That is unusual for my borough.
Despite all the work that we have done for those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, however, our housing allocation has been viciously cut by some 20 per cent. in real terms in the space of a year. Having asked for £82 million, we were given £19·25 million. That is the priority that the present Government give to housing. The result is a destruction of the community and a grouping in our society of people who have no opportunity to obtain public housing, and no opportunity to buy houses either.
We have heard cheers of delight from Conservative Members about the defeat of the Lords' amendment in the other place. They should reflect that that in itself will cause a massive spiral of inflation in house prices, particularly in the south-east, as a direct result of the poll tax. It will do nothing to help the housing crisis, any more than the measures so far proposed by the Government will dent that crisis.
We have heard talk today about the Bangladeshis. It is as if they, through no fault of their own, had contributed to the housing crisis in some parts of our country. That is not the case; the crisis was there long before they came. I can, however, name one person from the Indian sub-continent who has made a contribution to solving the housing crisis, Mother Teresa. That the day should ever come when she should have to leave the streets of Calcutta to point the finger of reproach at us in our capital city, and when Members of Parliament making their way home at night see people sleeping in boxes, is a reproach that Conservative Members must face.
The odour of sanctity clings to Mother Teresa as it has never clung to the Prime Minister, and we need to listen to what she says to us about housing. She says that we should care more, that we should devote more resources to housing and that we should put strategy in the place of rhetoric. That is the challenge that Mother Teresa presents to the House, and I only wish that Conservative Members were up to it.

Mr. Allan Roberts: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. It is also a welcome debate, and far too short for the right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate. But one never knows. Eventually—perhaps before the summer recess, perhaps after it—we can have a major debate on housing if the Housing Bill goes through Report stage and receives its Third Reading. The Bill is now lost in the limbo of the Department of the Environment and the disputes between the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Planning as they desperately try to define a "social landlord" in the private sector.
Last night I met a Mr. Roy Murphy. People in the north-west will know that he is Shelter's representative in the region. He said that he had just been to a Shelter meeting on "social housing". It used to be council housing; then it was public housing; now it is social housing. If I went on to the streets of Bootle and offered someone a social house, they would wonder what I was talking about. They would understand what a public house was, but that is not what the Minister is talking about. They want to be offered council housing. They do not want houses with private landlords.
Meetings all over the country during the run-up to the elections on 5 May were packed with people who made it clear, on council estate after council estate, that they did not want to go back to private landlords—especially the elderly and middle-aged, who started life as private tenants and waited and fought to get their council houses. They know what private landlordism means, and there is no going back to it for them.
The Housing Bill—an amazing feat on the part of the Secretary of State and the Minister—has made the Government's right-to-buy policy a vote-winner for the Labour party. People on council estates, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) pointed out, are dying to escape the consequences of this legislation. It was one thing for the Government to destroy the public rented sector to sell council housing to sitting tenants by means of discounts or other incentives—to sell to people who wanted to become owner-occupiers. It is another to start selling council houses over the heads of the sitting tenants, which is what they are now proposing—and, in some cases, selling off the sitting tenants as well, against their wishes.
Nearly 30 per cent. of people who live in council houses have bought them. That is not simply a tribute to the right to buy; it is a tribute to public sector housing. The tenants would not have bought the houses if they were not attractive low-rise houses. The Conservatives may be proud of selling them, but Labour is proud of building them. They would not have been there to sell if we had not built them in the first place. It is a myth perpetrated by the Tories that all council housing is bad and badly managed, but they are beginning to believe it themselves. Most

council housing is low-rise and attractive. Of course there have been mistakes, the mistakes of the late 1950s and early 1960s: the high-rise flats for families and the deck-access flats. But those mistakes represent a minority of the council houses in which nearly 30 per cent. of the population live.
What does the Minister think of council housing and council tenants? In a speech in August 1987, he said:
My belief is, there should not be much of it at all. It is an oddity confined largely to Britain amongst European countries that the state goes landlording on this scale.
So now we have it: council housing and council tenants are an oddity. That is the view of the Tories, and that is why for doctrinaire reasons they are setting about destroying public sector housing against the wishes of the tenants. As I have said, it is one thing to sell to sitting tenants; it is another to force people to give up their tenancies and be handed over to the private sector.
The Government say that the pick-a-landlord scheme gives council tenants a choice. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) mentioned that. Any council tenant is free to choose now: he can give up his council house and rent from a private landlord. I do not notice many of them doing that. However, I notice many people coming to my advice bureau and saying, "I rent from a private landlord. The property is infested with cockroaches; it is damp; he is fiddling the meter; he is overcharging; I cannot get the repairs done. Please will you get me a council house?" That has been the history of our advice bureaux for the past nine years of Tory rule, and it is the history of Conservative Members' advice bureaux as well, if they would only tell the truth.
The Government know that council tenants do not want to pick a private landlord. That is why they are rigging the voting system so that 51 per cent. of the people living on an estate picked out by a private landlord who wishes to take it over—not one that the tenants have asked to be taken over—must vote against the takeover; otherwise it will go ahead. It will not be 51 per cent. of those who vote, but 51 per cent. of those living on the estate. If someone dies while the vote is taking place, he will be counted as having voted yes because all abstentions will be counted votes. A tenant cannot go on holiday if he does not want to be taken over, because if he does not vote he will be counted as having voted yes.
Those who have exercised the right to buy—the owner-occupiers on the estate—will have a vote as well. They can vote for their neighbours to be taken over. It is a voting system worthy of Stalin or Franco. It gives the lie to the Tories' claim that people want to opt out of the council sector. They know full well that that is not true.

Mr. Michael J Martin: This applies not only to council housing, but to the Scottish Special Housing Association, which is a Government agency. All the tenants are happy with the organisation, yet the Government are forcing new landlords on them.

Mr. Roberts: We talk about the voting system for the pick-a-landlord scheme, but housing action trusts will not even get a vote. The Minister promised to tell us their position when the Bill received its Second Reading, but we still do not know. He said that he was going to announce six trusts. But there will be no choice whatever for them.
This is a con trick that the Conservatives always operate: "Starve the public sector of resources; do not give


the Health Service the money that it needs; that will cause waiting lists." Then they say, "It does not work; go private."
The Government are doing exactly the same in public sector housing. They are starving local authorities of the resources that they need to maintain and manage housing. They are also starving local authorities of the housing allocations that they need to build houses and offer transfers. They are making it difficult for local authorities to run public sector housing effectively. Then they say, "It does not work; go private." But people on the council estates know what the Government are up to. They have rumbled them.
The Government have tried to obfuscate and hide the facts. When the Secretary of State for the Environment answered a question about subsidies he said:
The total figures for Exchequer contributions to council housing in 1981–2 was £1·3 billion and in 1987–88 £0·8 billion."—[Official Report, 18 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 940]
That is a massive drop. However, the Secretary of State said that that does not matter because there were fewer houses in 1987–88.
I have the figures for 1978–79. The subsidy was £1·457 billion, an even bigger amount. It is not that there is less subsidy because there are fewer houses: there are fewer houses because there is less subsidy. The cut in subsidy has resulted in fewer houses. There are I million fewer houses for rent. The decline in subsidy over the last nine years of Tory rule is because the 1980 Act got rid of the Labour Government's direct subsidies to local authorities for the building of new council houses and the modernisation of older council houses.
Subsidies bear no relationship to the number of new council houses that are built or to the number of older houses that are modernised and improved. Central Government told local authorities to increase rents every year by a set amount—the local contribution—until the housing revenue account was in surplus. Central Government subsidies were reduced and it was hoped that eventually they would disappear. In many areas, they have disappeared. The housing revenue accounts of many local authorities are now in surplus. That is a direct consequence of this Government's attempt to cut subsidies to local authorities so that they build no more council houses, thereby ensuring that the public rented sector declines even further.
There are fewer houses and, we must assume, fewer tenants. However, as rents have increased during the last nine years, housing benefit payments, despite the seven cuts that this Tory Government have introduced, have increased from £1·7 billion in 1981–82 to £3·5 billion in 1987–88. There have been massive cuts in public expenditure subsidies to build council houses and improve older ones, but there has been an increase in public expenditure to help those who have to face the massive rent increases imposed by this Government.
There have also been massive cuts in the housing improvement programme allocations. In today's prices, South Bedfordshire spent £13·6 million in 1978–79. Now it has been given £809,000, a cut of 94·1 per cent. Manchester was spending £108,329,000 on its housing investment programme. That has been reduced to £23 million, a cut of 78·8 per cent. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) did not refer to the housing problems that

have been caused by the cut of 80·9 per cent. in the housing investment programme between 1979 and now. Norwich regularly returns a Labour council. At Beauthorpe it was building houses for sale, houses to rent from housing associations and houses to rent from the local authority. That has been stopped because of the Government's cuts in the housing investment programme.
What do this Government offer? They claim that the way to solve homelessness is to make sure that councils fill their empty houses, but they have ignored the huge number of empty houses in the private sector. In 1987, 511,000 private sector houses were standing empty, but only 108,600 public sector houses were standing empty.
The Government's answer to the problem has been to hand over housing to the private housing market. They want to destroy the public rented sector completely. They have introduced the concept of assured tenancies, which destroys security of tenure for most tenants in the private sector. They have also handed over council housing to the private rented sector.
The Government believe in only one kind of free market in housing—a shortage of housing. Market rents and house prices would fall if there were a surplus of housing. As the Government believe only in their own free market—a shortage—they will not build houses in the public rented sector. That would destroy the shortages that provide the profits in private rents and house prices. A house is not worth what it costs to build or what it costs to replace. A house is worth what people can get for it on the open market. That also determines rent levels. There is profit in the private rented sector and in the free market only if there is a housing crisis, a housing shortage and waiting lists.
Aneurin Bevan said that the best kind of rent control is nine families chasing 10 decent houses. That is why I make no apology for restating Labour's answer to homelessness and the housing crisis. It is to build more low-rise council houses in the public rented sector that people want so that we can eat up the waiting lists, rehouse homeless families and get people out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Public expenditure will be needed. The Government say, "We agree, but where is the money coming from?" But they cannot say that after the last Budget. There is plenty of money, "loadsa" money, and we are going to spend it on building council houses.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): As the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has said, this has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. Hon. Members have made many points, to which I shall respond. First, however, may I put the debate in the context of the changes that have been taking place in housing.
After the war our housing problems were on a large scale but they were relatively simple. What was needed was a massive programme of slum clearance and a massive programme of new building. It was arguable that, because of the uniform nature and scale of the problem, the house building programme had to be centrally planned and directed both nationally and at local level.
Today circumstances are very different. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has already said, nationally there are more houses than households. At regional level it is quite clear that the problems of each


region are very different from one another; that within each region the inner city, the suburbs, the small towns and the rural areas each have different needs. Even within a single locality there is a range of different specialist needs—for example, for the elderly or for single parents.
People's wants have changed, too. Most people want to own their own home. Even if they cannot afford ownership they want a choice. They are fed up with being on the receiving end of a distant and sometimes downright inefficient bureaucracy.
The difference between the Government and the Opposition is perhaps not so much one of ideology but that the Government have recognised that different circumstances require different solutions, while the Opposition, stuck in the groove like some cracked 78 record, keep repeating their worn-out formulae, unwilling to admit that the world has left them behind.
The Opposition motion invites us to "restore a planned programme" and
to create… an effective system of regulation.
The language is revealing. Plans, programmes, regulations are apparently the panacea. But what are plans, programmes or regulations if they are not decisions that affect our lives taken by someone else: by Whitehall, or by the town hall?
People would never accept for a moment that the quantity or type of food they eat or the clothes that they wear should be planned or programmed by their town hall, and they do not want to be dependent on them for their homes. Even more important, perhaps, the centralised approach to meeting housing needs can never work when those needs vary so much. Especially it will not work when our people are—and rightly so—so independent minded. It is no accident that many local authorities face severe housing management problems. These are the inevitable consequences of an approach that is no longer fitted to today's circumstances.

Mr. Boateng: rose——

Mrs. Roe: The Government's policy is based on offering people choice: letting them decide what they want. What most people want is to buy their own homes.

Mr. Boateng: rose——

Mrs. Roe: Since 1979, 4 million people have bought a home for the first time, including 1·1 million who were formerly council tenants. The number of home owners has risen by a quarter, and private sector house building has reached the highest level for 14 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) asked about proposals for improvement grants. As I am sure he knows, a consultation paper was issued on 5 November. We shall bring forward legislation as soon as we can.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) spoke about the rise in house prices. However, more people are able to buy their own homes. In 1979 there were 390,000 first-time buyers; last year there were 620,000. Total housing output continued to rise by 8 per cent. in 1987 to a total which is higher than in 1979. I was most interested by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire for speeding up house purchase and reducing gazumping. I shall certainly examine his suggestion.
There is of course a minority who do not want, or who cannot afford, owner-occupation. It is tenants who in the long run have suffered most from decades of excessive regulation and a centralised, programmed approach to housing provision. In practice, the tenant has had to accept whatever accommodation and whatever level of service his monopolist local authority landlord offers.
We want tenants to have a real choice. We need to break down the local authority monopoly and encourage private investment in the rented sector, creating competition between landlords so that landlords have to respond to tenants' needs rather than the other way round. To those who are already tenants of local authorities, and who cannot buy their home under the right to buy, we want to offer the possibility of choosing a new landlord.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) suggested that tenants might want to stay with local authority landlords. That is their choice, but the hon. Gentleman should remember that a National Consumer Council survey has shown that more than one fifth of tenants would prefer a new social landlord. Even if they decide not to make that choice, we are putting in tenants' hands a power which they can use to persuade their local authority to improve their level of service, a power that will even up the unequal contest between the tenant and a distant or uncaring management.
Several hon. Members have referred to the private rented sector. Excessive regulation of the private rented sector has stifled investment. In 1938 the private rented sector accounted for 57 per cent. of the stock; now it accounts for only 8 per cent. In 1981 17 per cent. of the private rented stock was in serious disrepair.

Mr. George Howarth: rose——

Mrs. Roe: We must encourage new investment. The business expansion scheme will stimulate investment by offering tax relief. Local authorities are being given a power to give subsidy where it is needed. Those measures will provide a major incentive to the investment that is needed to improve the housing conditions of those who rent.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Hammersmith welcomes our policy of supporting housing associations. Housing associations have a record of flexibility and responsiveness to tenants' needs. They are much better adapted to cope with the enormous variety of housing needs that we now face. The Government intend to build on that success. We are bringing in more private investment and increasing public sector support through the Housing Corporation.

Mr. George Howarth: rose——

Mrs. Roe: The Housing Corporation's investment programme has been increased to £737 million in the current year and will increase further to £850 million by 1990–91. The private investment which is already coming in will be over and above that.
The increase in the Housing Corporation programme was part of a general increase in the resources made available for housing investment. The housing capital programme this year was increased to £3,827 million; up 10 per cent. on earlier plans and £140 million above outturn for 1987–88.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Unless the hon. Lady gives way—[Interruption.] She does not have to give way.

Mrs. Roe: I agreed to curb my comments to 15 minutes so that I could respond to hon. Members' points without giving way.
Local authorities continue to account for the bulk of expenditure. They continue to account for a very significant proportion of tenancies. It is vital, therefore, that local authorities offer a good service to their tenants.
The first priority is to improve the state of the stock and to bring back into use vacant dwellings. There is no lack of resources for repair and improvement of the local authority stock. Plans for the current year allow for capital expenditure of £1,770 million, an increase of II per cent. over last year's outturn. Total expenditure on repair and maintenance is nearly £3 billion—more in real terms than in 1979–80 even though the stock is smaller. More important perhaps is the fact that the money is used effectively, and that improvements to the fabric are matched by improvements in management.
Run-down estates get special attention and extra resources through the Estate Action schemes. Projects involve renovation of the fabric, the bringing in of private investment, and the establishment of responsive locally based management. Since 1985 schemes have been supported with £120 million of allocations, benefiting 110,000 homes and 300,000 tenants. Expenditure this year will almost double to £140 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and other hon. Members referred to the numbers of homeless, and to local authorities' use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It really is extraordinary that some authorities cannot manage without extensive use of bed-and-breakfast—even though they have properties empty and idle—particularly as other authorities with just as many homeless to care for do manage without bed-and-breakfast.
Local authorities have more than 112,000 empty properties; 28,000, or 25 per cent., have been empty for more than a year. That is nearly three times the number of families in bed-and-breakfast. In London, which accounts for over 80 per cent. of those in bed-and-breakfast, local authorities have nearly five times as many empty properties as there are families in bed-and-breakfast.
Local authorities have unlimited access to their capital receipts to bring empties back into use. But not every authority uses its receipts. For example, Labour-controlled Camden and Hammersmith and Fulham had at 1 April 1987 over £60 million in accumulated receipts and 600 households in bed-and-breakfast while 150 and 250 council dwellings respectively awaited major repairs. Some authorities that could raise more receipts through right to buy and use them to bring empties back into use have been dragging their feet.
There are 20 authorities with 4 per cent. or more of their stock empty. Twenty authorities with the most vacancies have more than 50,000 empty dwellings between them. In London, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Southwark, Islington and Lewisham have between them some 13,800 empty homes. Some authorities re-let their dwellings in three to four weeks, but it takes Southwark an average of 24 weeks. That reduces the number of dwellings available by 1,800—enough to house all its homeless. I repeat that the Audit Commission estimated that if the national

average re-let preiod could be reduced by just two and a half weeks an additional 20,000 empty dwellings could be occupied.
The Opposition motion protests at the numbers of homeless and the number in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and calls for an increasing supply of low-cost housing. I share their concerns. The difference between us is this. The Opposition talk of their concern while their own authorities keep houses empty for months or even years and fail to collect the rents, fail to use receipts to carry our repairs and fail to deliver a decent service to those whom they claim to represent. Faced with the challenge of the changing pattern of housing needs, the Opposition can think of little better than to return to the formulae of the 1950s.
The Government have faced up to the challenge of the 1980s and the 1990s. We have come forward with a programme of radical reform. Our approach is based on giving people greater freedom to make their own choice, on creating diversity in the housing market and competition between landlords and on breaking down remote, insensitive, and inefficient local authority monopolies.
The Opposition used to condemn the idea of giving tenants the right to buy their own homes. They do not do so now. It is far too popular. Perhaps in time they will come to realise that those tenants who cannot afford to buy still want a choice and a better service. They want less politicking and more efficiency. They do not want to be dependent on a municipal monopoly. The Opposition's approach is based on the town hall deciding what housing people should have. The Government's approach is based on giving people the freedom to make their own choice.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 331.

Division No. 316]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Allen, Graham
Clay, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Clelland, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Cohen, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Coleman, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cox, Tom


Beckett, Margaret
Cryer, Bob


Bell, Stuart
Cummings, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunningham, Dr John


Blair, Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Boateng, Paul
Darling, Alistair


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dixon, Don


Buchan, Norman
Dobson, Frank


Buckley, George J.
Douglas, Dick


Caborn, Richard
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Callaghan, Jim
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Eadie, Alexander


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fatchett, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew


Cartwright, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)






Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Michael, Alun


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Morley, Elliott


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Nellist, Dave


Golding, Mrs Llin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, William


Gould, Bryan
O'Neill, Martin


Graham, Thomas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Patchett, Terry


Grocott, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prescott, John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Quin, Ms Joyce


Heffer, Eric S.
Radice, Giles


Henderson, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Reid, Dr John


Holland, Stuart
Richardson, Jo


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hood, Jimmy
Robertson, George


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian


Ingram, Adam
Sheerman, Barry


Janner, Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Johnston, Sir Russell
Short, Clare


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Snape, Peter


Lambie, David
Soley, Clive


Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon David


Leighton, Ron
Steinberg, Gerry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Terry
Straw, Jack


Litherland, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Turner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Vaz, Keith


McAllion, John
Wall, Pat


McAvoy, Thomas
Wallace, James


Macdonald, Calum A.
Walley, Joan


McFall, John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wareing, Robert N.


McKelvey, William
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McLeish, Henry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McNamara, Kevin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McTaggart, Bob
Wilson, Brian


McWilliam, John
Winnick, David


Madden, Max
Worthington, Tony


Marek, Dr John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Martlew. Eric





NOES


Adley, Robert
Amos, Alan


Aitken, Jonathan
Arbuthnot, James


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Allason, Rupert
Ashby, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Aspinwall, Jack


Amess, David
Atkinson, David





Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bendall, Vivian
Franks, Cecil


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Freeman, Roger


Benyon, W.
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gardiner, George


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gill, Christopher


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Body, Sir Richard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gorst, John


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gow, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Grist, Ian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Ground, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grylls, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nicholas
Hannam, John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Butler, Chris
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayes, Jerry


Carrington, Matthew
Hayward, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Heddle, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n}
Hill, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Holt, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cope, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Curry, David
Irvine, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert


Day, Stephen
Janman, Tim


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Tony
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fallon, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Knox, David


Favell, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Latham, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Ivan






Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCrindle, Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maples, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Marlow, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Lewis


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Mellor, David
Stokes, John


Miller, Hal
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mills, lain
Sumberg, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moore, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mudd, David
Tracey, Richard


Neale, Gerrard
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trippier, David


Neubert, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, Richard
Walden, George


Paice, James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Patnick, Irvine
Walters, Dennis


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Ward, John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wheeler, John


Portillo, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, Sir David
Wilkinson, John


Raffan, Keith
Wilshire, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Redwood, John
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Rhodes James, Robert
Woodcock, Mike


Riddick, Graham
Yeo, Tim


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Younger, Rt Hon George


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Noes:


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Rost, Peter
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 202.

Division No. 317]
[7.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Couchman, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Cran, James


Alexander, Richard
Critchley, Julian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Allason, Rupert
Curry, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amos, Alan
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashby, David
Dover, Den


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, David
Durant, Tony


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baldry, Tony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Fallon, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Farr, Sir John


Bellingham, Henry
Favell, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Benyon, W.
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forth, Eric


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Body, Sir Richard
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Franks, Cecil


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gardiner, George


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Alastair


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gow, Ian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gregory, Conal


Buck, Sir Antony
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Budgen, Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Burns, Simon
Grist, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Ground, Patrick


Butcher, John
Grylls, Michael


Butler, Chris
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, John


Cash, William
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chapman, Sydney
Harris, David


Churchill, Mr
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hawkins, Christopher


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayward, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Heddle, John


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cope, John
Hill, James


Cormack, Patrick
Hind, Kenneth






Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Neubert, Michael


Holt, Richard
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howard, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Page, Richard


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Paice, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Irvine, Michael
Pawsey, James


Jack, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jackson, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Janman, Tim
Portillo, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Powell, William (Corby)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Price, Sir David


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rathbone, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Redwood, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Renton, Tim


Knapman, Roger
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCrindle, Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David
Sims, Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Speller, Tony


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Maples, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Marlow, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stevens, Lewis


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Mellor, David
Stokes, John


Miller, Hal
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mills, lain
Sumberg, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moore, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Thorne, Neil


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mudd, David
Tracey, Richard


Neale, Gerrard
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trippier, David





Trotter, Neville
Widdecombe, Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wilkinson, John


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wilshire, David


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waldegrave, Hon William
Winterton, Nicholas


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Woodcock, Mike


Walters, Dennis
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wheeler, John
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Whitney, Ray





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fatchett, Derek


Allen, Graham
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson, Donald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fisher, Mark


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Flannery, Martin


Ashton, Joe
Flynn, Paul


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foster, Derek


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Foulkes, George


Barron, Kevin
Galbraith, Sam


Battle, John
George, Bruce


Beckett, Margaret
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bidwell, Sydney
Gordon, Mildred


Blair, Tony
Gould, Bryan


Boateng, Paul
Graham, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hardy, Peter


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Buckley, George J.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Caborn, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.


Callaghan, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Holland, Stuart


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Home Robertson, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hood, Jimmy


Cartwright, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Janner, Greville


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
John, Brynmor


Corbett, Robin
Johnston, Sir Russell


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cox, Tom
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cryer, Bob
Kennedy, Charles


Cummings, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lambie, David


Cunningham, Dr John
Leadbitter, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Leighton, Ron


Darling, Alistair
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Livsey, Richard


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dixon, Don
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dobson, Frank
Loyden, Eddie


Douglas, Dick
McAllion, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McAvoy, Thomas


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Macdonald, Calum A.


Eadie, Alexander
McFall, John






McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rogers, Allan


McKelvey, William
Rooker, Jeff


McLeish, Henry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


McTaggart, Bob
Ruddock, Joan


McWilliam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Madden, Max
Sheerman, Barry


Marek, Dr John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Short, Clare


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michael, Alun
Snape, Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morgan, Rhodri
Steinberg, Gerry


Morley, Elliott
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Straw, Jack


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Nellist, Dave
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Turner, Dennis


O'Brien, William
Vaz, Keith


O'Neill, Martin
Wall, Pat


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wallace, James


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Walley, Joan


Parry, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Patchett, Terry
Wareing, Robert N.


Pike, Peter L.
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Dr John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Richardson, Jo



Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, George
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Ken Eastham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
'That this House congratulates the Government on the success of its home ownership policies, enabling more people than ever before to own their own homes; notes with satisfaction the Government's proposals in the Housing Bill to encourage private renting, to expand the role of housing associations, to give council tenants the right to seek a new landlord of their choice, and to establish Housing Action Trusts to improve conditions for tenants in some of the worst council estates; deplores the incompetence displayed by some Labour housing authorities who have on the one hand condemned homeless people to bed and breakfast while they have empty council property, and on the other failed to deal with delays for existing tenants who seek to exercise their right to buy; urges the Government to press ahead with its radical reforms of the rented sector of housing in the interests both of present tenants and the homeless, and to continue to maintain a proper balance between the needs of development and the protection of the environment; and congratulates it on extending and maintaining the protection afforded by green belts round major cities.'.

Orders of the Day — Firearms (Amendment) Bill

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the recommittal motion in the name of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). I remind the House that it is subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 72, by which the proposer of the motion may speak for 10 minutes with a similar limit for the reply.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move,
That the Bill be recommitted to the former committee.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this motion in somewhat unusual circumstances and I appreciate that you will be operating under the usual ten-minute Bill procedure.
It is reasonable to ask why the Government brought the Bill before the House for consideration in the first place. Of course, we all understand that after the disastrous events at Hungerford there was an instant lobby that demanded that the Government do something. However, I have to tell the House that if that something is this Bill, the events at Hungerford could still have taken place because there is no legislation that can legislate against a madman. A madman can kill with whatever weapon he chooses.
There is nothing in the Bill that will reduce crime. The Government are quite wrong in simply wishing to reduce the number of firearms by seeking out a section of the community for no good reason. Self-loading rifles and pump-action shotguns are the main objects of the legislation. The interesting thing about rifles is that they are scarcely ever used in crime. In 1976, the last year for which figures are available, in nearly 10,000 crimes involving firearms, about half were with air weapons and only 53 were with rifles—0·6 per cent. The police acknowledge that pump-action shotguns are the least useful weapon to take if one is bent on criminal assault. They are least useful because they are bulky, heavy and difficult to saw off.
I sympathise with the Government's wish to increase the security of weapons and to understand more about the ownership and disposition of weapons. However, that could have been done by administrative procedure. Instead, we have this Bill which was hastily drawn up, written in a few minutes and written very badly. Before the Committee stage, the proposal was that a cardboard tube, which I produced in Committee, was an item that would from thenceforth require a firearms certificate because it was a mortar. The advisers to the Home Office had forgotten about fireworks. That is one example of many.
I shall come to the substantive part of my argument in moving the motion. There are no fewer than 36 groups of amendments on the Order Paper.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Groups.

Mr. Wiggin: Yes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, there are 36 groups. By anybody's interpretation, the Bill is being rewritten and


that will happen unless the House votes for my motion. Surely it is not right to rewrite a Bill on Report; that should be done in Committee.
My most important reason for seeking the support of the House was last week's inclusion, for the first time in all the months that we have been debating the Bill, of Northern Ireland. It cannot be constitutionally right for a Bill to pass Second Reading and Committee without including Northern Ireland and then, at the eleventh hour, to be changed to include it. As we constantly debate the unity of the United Kingdom, that was a grave error by the Government, and it is another good reason to send the Bill back to Committee.
We believe that my hon. Friend the Minister gave us several commitments that the Government are refusing to honour. The exclusion of self-loading rifles with integral magazines was given in all but name. My hon. Friend used weasel words, but he has now gone back on that commitment.
The one thing in the Bill that those of us who are interested in the subject believed was a step forward was the statutory committee to advise the Government so that we should not get into this sort of mess again. The lack of expertise in firearms in the Home Office is only too apparent. On Friday morning the Government tabled a series of amendments to neuter that statutory committee and make it a puppet of the Home Secretary—and effectively useless.
I see no reason to take the full 10 minutes that you have kindly allowed me, Mr. Speaker. My final and most overpowering argument is that if the House votes for this motion everyone should be having their dinners in their homes before 8 pm. If it does not, 36 groups of amendments will have to be gone over carefully. It is just conceivable that in the early hours of the morning some of my hon. Friends may turn a little critical. If they want a night's sleep, I hope that they will support the motion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) played his best card last. The only thing in favour of the motion is that it would give us an early night. I cannot commend it on any other ground. Much as I should enjoy serving on another Committee with my hon. Friend to examine this Bill, I do not think the facts justify my asking the House to give me that indulgence.
It is perfectly true that there is a substantial number of amendments on Report, but there is nothing unusual about that. I have always made it plain that the Government would respond to reasonable criticisms, and that is what we have done. With the exception of the amendments related to Northern Ireland, all the substantive amendments reflect exhaustive debate in Committee. Indeed, in most cases they reflect the Committee's conclusions.
The main changes can be summarised as follows. First, we are leaving three-shot self-loading shotguns in clause 2. That matter was extensively canvassed in Committee and in making that concession we responded to the Committee's wish. The second major change relates to the deactivation and conversion of guns, which was also extensively debated in Committee, and these amendments respond to what was said.
Although our movements on compensation do not feature on Report in the form of Government amendments, they were widely debated and are, I think, broadly welcomed by hon. Members.
Other major changes relating to museums were also debated a great deal in Committee, and, without exception, the amendments that we are bringing forward today respond to what hon. Members who served on the Committee wanted us to do.
As for Northern Ireland, most of the powers that have been taken by way of order either accord with existing practice or are of minor impact.
What we have done with the consultative committee is to put in proper form that will be acceptable to the House the intent of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. We tidied up the provisions about the nomination of its members and provided clear guidance on its remit. We have honoured the intent of hon. Members on the Committee in every respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare has always been candid; he is instinctively opposed to firearms control and believes that this is a bad Bill. He is entitled to those views, although I disagree with both. But the motion that he so lucidly and briefly introduced was more a reflection of his hostility to the concept of firearms control and to the Bill than of his desire to spend another few months in Committee with me. I do not criticise him for that—he is entitled to his views—but hon. Members listening to the debate need to be clear about the reasons that lie behind the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 254.

Division No 318]
[7.36 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Allen, Graham
Clay. Bob


Anderson, Donald
Clelland, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Cohen, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Coleman, Donald


Ashton, Joe
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Corbett, Robin


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cryer, Bob


Beckett, Margaret
Cummings, John


Bell, Stuart
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bellingham, Henry
Cunningham, Dr John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dalyell, Tam


Benyon, W.
Darling, Alistair


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blair, Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dixon, Don


Boyes, Roland
Dobson, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Douglas, Dick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Eadie, Alexander


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Eastham, Ken


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Fatchett, Derek


Buck, Sir Antony
Faulds, Andrew


Buckley, George J.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Jim
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Flannery, Martin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Flynn, Paul


Canavan, Dennis
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Cartwright, John
Foster, Derek






Foulkes, George
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Galbraith, Sam
Moonie, Dr Lewis


George, Bruce
Morgan, Rhodri


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morley, Elliott


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mullin, Chris


Gordon, Mildred
Murphy, Paul


Gould, Bryan
Nellist, Dave


Graham, Thomas
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pike, Peter L.


Grocott, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grylls, Michael
Prescott, John


Hardy, Peter
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Radice, Giles


Haynes, Frank
Randall, Stuart


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Reid, Dr John


Heffer, Eric S.
Richardson, Jo


Henderson, Doug
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robertson, George


Holland, Stuart
Robinson, Geoffrey


Holt, Richard
Rogers, Allan


Home Robertson, John
Rooker, Jeff


Hood, Jimmy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Rost, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Ingram, Adam
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Short, Clare


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Skinner, Dennis


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lambie, David
Snape, Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Soley, Clive


Leighton, Ron
Spearing, Nigel


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lewis, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Litherland, Robert
Stott, Roger


Livsey, Richard
Straw, Jack


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McAllion, John
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McAvoy, Thomas
Turner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum A.
Vaz, Keith


McFall, John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wall, Pat


McKelvey, William
Wallace, James


McLeish, Henry
Walley, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


McTaggart, Bob
Wareing, Robert N.


McWilliam, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Madden, Max
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Marek, Dr John
Wiggin, Jerry


Marland, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wilson, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Winnick, David


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Worthington, Tony


Martlew, Eric
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michael, Alun
Sir Hector Monro and


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Robert Hicks.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Allason, Rupert
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Amos, Alan
Batiste, Spencer


Arbuthnot, James
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aspinwall, Jack
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter





Boswell, Tim
Hill, James


Bottomley, Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Howard, Michael


Bowis, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brazier, Julian
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Irvine, Michael


Burns, Simon
Jack, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Jackson, Robert


Butcher, John
Janman, Tim


Butler, Chris
Jessel, Toby


Butterfill, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Carttiss, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cash, William
Kirkhope, Timothy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Knowles, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knox, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lang, Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael


Conway, Derek
Lawrence, Ivan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cope, John
Lightbown, David


Cormack, Patrick
Lilley, Peter


Couchman, James
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Cran, James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Critchley, Julian
Lord, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Curry, David
McCrindle, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maclean, David


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dicks, Terry
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Dunn, Bob
Madel, David


Durant, Tony
Malins, Humfrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Mans, Keith


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Maples, John


Evennett, David
Marlow, Tony


Fallon, Michael
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Farr, Sir John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Favell, Tony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mates, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Miller, Hal


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mills, lain


Forth, Eric
Miscampbell, Norman


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Franks, Cecil
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Freeman, Roger
Moore, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gale, Roger
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Gardiner, George
Moss, Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mudd, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Neale, Gerrard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nelson, Anthony


Gorst, John
Neubert, Michael


Gow, Ian
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Nicholls, Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Grist, Ian
Page, Richard


Ground, Patrick
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Patnick, Irvine


Hanley, Jeremy
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Harris, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Haselhurst, Alan
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hawkins, Christopher
Portillo, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Price, Sir David


Heddle, John
Raffan, Keith






Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Stokes, John


Redwood, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Renton, Tim
Sumberg, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Summerson, Hugo


Riddick, Graham
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rowe, Andrew
Thorne, Neil


Ryder, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Sayeed, Jonathan
Trippier, David


Scott, Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walden, George


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walters, Dennis


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Speed, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Speller, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin
Woodcock, Mike


Stanbrook, Ivor
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Steen, Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, in moving his motion, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) referred to Northern Ireland. May I point out that in Committee I was prevented from discussing the effect that the Bill would have on Northern Ireland because there was no reference to it in the Bill? The House should be aware of that. What guidance can the House be given about whether Northern Ireland may be fully discussed?

Mr. Speaker: The matter has been resolved by the House and we must now proceed. If the hon. Gentleman catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair, he will be able to deploy his case then.

New Clause 2

DE-ACTIVATED WEAPONS

'For the purposes of the principal Act and this Act it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that a firearm has been rendered incapable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile, and has consequently ceased to be a firearm within the meaning of those Acts, if—

(a) it bears a mark which has been approved by the Secretary of State for denoting that fact and which has been made either by one of the two companies mentioned in section 58(1) of the principal Act or by such other person as may be approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section; and
(b) that company or person has certified in writing that work has been carried out on the firearm in a

manner approved by the Secretary of State for rendering it incapable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clause 3—Conversion not to affect classification—
'(1) Any weapon which has at any time (whether before or after the passing of this Act) been a weapon of a kind described in section 5(1) of the principal Act as amended by or under section 1 above shall be treated as a prohibited weapon notwithstanding anything done for the purpose of converting it into a weapon of a different kind.
(2) Any weapon which—

(a) has at any time since the coming into force of section 2 above been a weapon to which section 1 of the principal Act applies; or
(b) would at any previous time have been such a weapon if those sections had then been in force,

shall, if it has, or at any time has had, a barrel less than 24 inches in length, be treated as a weapon to which section I of the principal Act applies notwithstanding anything done for the purpose of converting it into a shot gun or an air weapon.'.
and amendment (a) to the new clause, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Hogg: The two new clauses before the House respond to the criticism of clause 7 of the Bill as it was originally formulated and which was defeated in Committee. The two new clauses deal with deactivation and conversion. I shall deal first with deactivation. It is dealt with in new clause 2, which permits it. Deactivated weapons will be outside the scope of the firearms legislation, provided that the work of deactivation has been carried out in accordance with a specification approved by my right hon. Friend and is certifed by the proof house or houses as having been deactivated in an approved manner.
The original proposal about conversion in clause 7 was that a weapon always retained its original status. Hon. Members on the Committee suggested that that proposition went too far and they deleted clause 7 from the Bill. On reflection, we feel that there was justification in that criticism, although I suggest to the House that the original proposal should still apply to section 5 guns. Thus fully automatic guns, and if the House so decides self-loading rifles, will always retain that status. So will section 1 guns having a barrel length of less than 24 in. Subject to that, the Bill allows conversions of section 1 guns downwards to airguns and shotguns. The most obvious example is a rifle that has been smooth-bored so that it takes a shotgun cartridge. The purpose of new clause 3 is to permit that downwards conversion.

Sir Hector Monro: We welcome the new clause about deactivisation, which we debated at some length in Committee. However, the Minister will have to go a little further in explaining what he is doing. The Minister has been fair enough in what he has said so far, but we have to go into the issue of clarification about the proof houses and the letter that they will have to provide to say that the weapon has been deactivated.
As we all know, there are only two proof houses in Britain—one in Birmingham and one in London. Given all the things that they will have to do if the Bill is approved, they will be grossly overworked. They are geared not to do


this sort of work but to do what they do better than any other proof house in the world—test guns. They are not used to writing out certificates and, if necessary, writing on the weapons something to the effect that they have been deactivated.
Can the Minister tell us who else will be allowed to carry out this work? Which gunsmiths or dealers will be allowed to carry it out? The skill and knowledge of our gunsmiths are envied throughout the world and it should not be too difficult for the Minister to arrange through the trade for many gun shops throughout the country to be available to do this work.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the geographical issue. Birmingham is as far north as the proof houses go and I should like to see dealers in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Inverness appointed to carry out the work because they could do it just as effectively as anyone in the south. It could also be carried out in the north of England, in Newcastle and perhaps in Carlisle. Nothing about this is in the Bill or has been spelt out by the Minister who has not given us anything like sufficient information that would enable us to give the Bill the wholesome welcome that we wish to give it.
New clause 3 deals with conversion. I hope that the Minister will explain subsection (2). I have not yet found anybody interested in this Bill who has been able to elucidate what on earth it means. The people to whom I have spoken are highly skilled and knowledgeable members of the British Field Sports Society. They all ask what on earth the Minister is trying to say in subsection (2).
The Minister has failed to deal with the conversion of rifles into other forms of weapons, such as rook rifles and .410 shotguns, and old elephant guns into shotguns. We discussed those matters in great detail in Committee. The Minister has never given an explanation about why one should not do that. He seems to think that some crook entering my house to pinch a rook rifle that has been converted to a ·410 shotgun and is therefore of smooth bore will take it to some highly skilled gunsmith to have it rifled, re-barrelled. It beggars description that that will happen. What is wrong with a rook rifle made into a ·410? It will be a smooth bore ·410 for the rest of its life. I hope that someone will give the Minister the answer to that question.

Mr. Michael Colvin: rose——

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend is making a mistake.

Sir Hector Monro: I was giving way to to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).

Mr. Colvin: Can my hon. Friend quote to the House any instance where a rifle converted to a shotgun has been converted back to a rifle?

Sir Hector Monro: No, I cannot, but perhaps the Minister can. Many experts have told me firmly that no converted weapon of the sort that we are talking about has ever been used in crime.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend may be under some misapprehension. The proposition that we originally put forward was that a gun retained its original classification. As I explained when I introduced the new clauses, we adhered to that proposition for section 5 guns. I also said that where a section 1 rifle has been smooth-bored to make it a shotgun it has been treated as a shotgun under the proposals and not as a rifle. My hon. Friend is talking about a rifle that has been turned into a 410. He can do that because the weapon is then treated as a shotgun held under section 2 and not under section 1.

Sir Hector Monro: I am grateful for that explanation. The matter mystifies everybody else in the gun trade and the Minister must be the only chap who understands the Bill. His explanation is a step forward.
I have already spoken about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside about whether a converted weapon has ever been used in crime. I have not heard of any such cases, but I look forward to the Ministers's reply when perhaps he can tell us whether such a crime has taken place. The Minister has gone too far and has been over-restrictive about conversion. My hon. Friends in Committee raised other matters about conversions and no doubt they will raise other points in this debate.
Is the Minister clear in his own mind about where we stand about sleeving guns, re-barrelling and re-sleeving them, because that is also important? We want to know whether that will be entirely in order in future. There was certainly doubt about it in Committee and it has not been elucidated in the new clauses. As I have said, I welcome the minor step about deactivation but the Minister is still going too far on conversion.

8 pm

Mr. Robin Corbett: One of the hallmarks, or perhaps one of the proofs, of the Bill is the sloppiness with which it has been drafted. Because of the earlier vote, we shall now have to discuss 177 amendments and new clauses, 63 of which have been tabled by the Government—a fine example of making legislation on the hoof. This is not the best way to do it, especially with such an important subject. These new clauses illustrate this point.
Yet again we are being invited to give the Secretary of State a blank cheque. I doubt whether the details that lie behind new clause 2 exist on paper. They are probably a thought in the head of somebody in that grey area of the Home Office. Perhaps the Minister will tell us something about these details because he did not do so when he moved the new clause. Over what period is this expected to happen? Is it unlimited? Is it over a fortnight, six months, a year, three years, six years, 10 years, or as quickly as possible?
What kind of mark is envisaged? Is it to be a red dot, a yellow dot or a blue dot? What is to be its size? Is it to be a scoring on the barrel? Clearly, it must be something that cannot easily be removed if this is to be of any value with either deactivated or converted guns. This is a serious point, and I am not treating it lightly. What discussions has the Minister, or his officials, had about the kind of mark that will be permanently attached to the weapons? Have the fine proof houses in Birmingham and London been consulted? Has there been consultation about the adhesion or the engraving of the mark and of the effect


that that may have on valuable weapons? I am thinking in particular of antique, vintage weapons or classic weapons that have a high market value.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) asked the Minister who he has in mind to carry out the work, and on what basis. The geography is important. Pleased as I am to see more work going to the Birmingham proof house, it will make problems if only proof houses are used. If, as I suspect, some gunsmiths will be allowed to put these marks on the weapons, on what basis will they be selected? Is it every gunsmith who applies, one per county, or two per county? These are the factors about which we need to know.
What about the cost of the exercise? Has anybody taken advice on the likely charges that either the proof houses or the authorised gun dealers or gunsmiths will impose for carrying out this work? Will there be a difference in the level of charges between the proof houses and the gunsmiths? Has anybody thought about this? These are the questions that the holders of these weapons not just want answered but have a right to have answered. These points could well have been settled in Committee if the Minister had not been so bone-headed as to oppose the earlier motion for recommittal.
Unless the Minister is going to say that every gunsmith in the kingdom will be able to apply to carry out this work of deactivating and converting weapons, there will be a great deal of unfairness because choices will have to be made. I do not object if we say to every gunsmith, "If you want to do it, spend 13p or 18p on a stamp and we will grant the necessary authorisation." I suspect that it will not be like that. Instead, qualifications will be laid down. I hope that, before we get much further in the debate on the new clause, the Minister will give us, and those beyond the walls of the House, the answer to these questions.
I understand that Bills are drafted in this way, but new clause 2(b) is confusing. It says:
that company or person has certified in writing that work has been carried out on the firearm in a manner approved by the Secretary of State for rendering it incapable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile.
I am not sure what
in a manner approved by the Secretary of State
means. Does it mean that the mark put on the weapon will be approved by the Secretary of State; or—this is another legitimate reading of these words—that it has to be put on, let alone that it is a proof authorised by the Secretary of State, in a manner of which the Secretary of State approves?
This is an important issue. It would be for the convenience of the House if the Minister had been more forthcoming at the start of the debate on these new clauses. and told us in a little more detail what they propose. I hope that he will now do so.

Mr. Wiggin: I say, first, to my hon. Friend the Minister—in the hope that he is not leaving the Chamber—that, despite his accusation, I am not opposed to all firearms legislation. I am opposed to legislating against the innocent private legitimate owner of firearms in the completely misplaced notion that in some way that will prevent criminal activity. My hon. Friend has consistently refused to answer that point, because he has no answer to it. That is why I am opposed to the legislation. I would support any part of it that I could fnd useful, but I can find little or no part of it that is useful, and this has promoted my hostility to the Bill.
I find it distressing that, the Committee having removed a clause from the Bill, the Government are seeking to put it back again, although I suppose that that is predictable. If someone has a ·410 that has been made from an old rifle—there are a considerable number of such weapons—on the passing of this legislation that person will he committing an offence. This is a retrospective proposal, and I have always voted against retrospective legislation. In this instance, innocent people who have shotgun certificates will be required to get a firearms certificate at a considerable cost.

Mr. Ron Davies: On Second Reading, which we both opposed, the hon. Gentleman and I made common cause on the grounds that the Government had advocated this legislation on the basis that it would be an adequate response to the events at Hungerford. The hon. Member served on the Committee that considered the Bill, and I know that he agreed with the points made by those of us who had reservations about it.
If these new clauses had been in force, would they have prevented any of the events that led to Hungerford? If they were accepted now, would they prevent events such as those that led to Hungerford, or would they improve the existing legislation on firearms in such a way as to prevent the illegal use of firearms in the pursuit of crime?

Mr. Wiggin: As I said in my speech when I proposed the motion to recommit the Bill, I do not believe that anything in the Bill would have prevented Hungerford. Nor do I believe that the Government can legislate about anything that could have prevented Hungerford. A mad man can, and sadly may in the future, kill with whatever weapons he happens to have at his disposal. The misplaced notion that reducing the number of legally held weapons will prevent such an incident is ridiculous.

Mr. Frank Cook: Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate on the proposition that had the existing legislation been properly applied Hungerford would not have happened?

Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) has recently tabled a series of interesting questions. The spokesman for the Thames Valley police made a slip the other day when it was acknowledged that there may have been some modest administrative error in the issue of Ryan's certificate. I support those who believe that the Government should have had a full-scale inquiry into that matter. The Government's persistent refusal on the ground that there is nothing to inquire into does not give the public the confidence that the Government tell us they are trying to imbue in the public, and for which purpose they have introduced this legislation.

Mr. Frank Cook: I want to be clear about this, and I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the existing legislation had been applied the events at Hungerford should not have been possible?

Mr. Wiggin: Every item of evidence points to that effect, but other hon. Members may be better informed than me and may wish to elucidate that matter. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to put words into my mouth.
It was a mistake not to have had a fuller inquiry into the precise bureaucratic procedures that preceded the issuing of that certificate. On the other hand, it is worth bearing


in mind that Ryan also possessed some unlicensed firearms and therefore even if the procedures had been complied with he would still have been in possession of weapons. I am not certain whether it is wise to go down that road, certainly not in respect of these measures, and I have no doubt that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will rule me out of order if I do so.
I query the application of retrospective legislation to this important issue, and I question the great crime wave that is supposedly associated with converted weapons. I do not believe that it exists. It is yet another example of the petty, spiteful attitude towards all firearms of those who advise my hon. Friend the Minister.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on four points. First, an issue has come to light that I had not realised might arise under the proposal. There is some doubt as to whether guns that have been resleeved or rebarrelled would still have protection. The Minister should deal with that point and I wish to quote to him some advice that I have received from a former colleague, Fred Silvester, who has been assiduous in representing to the Committee the interests of the gun trade. He says:
There is the problem of sleeving. The Home Office keeps saying they understand the point, but they do nothing about it.
He goes on to say:
Sleeving involves removing the barrel and replacing it with another.
He is not entirely right. My gun has been redone, and that simply involved taking out a piece and replacing it. However, he goes on to say:
The man who does this work commits no offence because he is given special protection by section 4 of the 1968 Act, and by clause 6 of the Bill. New clause 3, however, still leaves the gun itself unprotected. If it is cut down below 24 inches, it remains in section 1"——
that is entirely right—
and fixing the new barrel to it makes no difference.
My hon. Friend the Minister should elucidate that point as a simple issue of practicality.
My second point echoes that raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). I should like to know exactly what kind of mark will be required to be placed upon firearms to prove that they have been rendered inoperable. It is important for the police—the House knows of my interest, which will remain for some time to come—to know what sort of mark will be used, and their advice should be taken because they will have to identify the mark and take action accordingly.
My third point arises from the fact that other persons, besides proof houses, will be able to carry out such work. That is entirely right. There are only two proof houses, and it would be extremely onerous to expect people throughout the country to use only those two proof houses. There are plenty of satisfactory craftsmen who can do the job. For example, a man in my constituency, who acts as the police armourer, is capable of doing that job without relying on the excellent work done in Birmingham. However, it is important to the police, to the trade and to all those who will be required to have their firearms dealt with in this way to know which local craftsmen will be allowed to do the job and on what basis.
8.15 pm
That brings me to my fourth point—how the Government intend to authenticate the armourers who will be permitted to perform the deactivations. What sort of skills must they have? How is their probity to be measured? A form of qualifying certificate will have to be issued. It is important, on Report, that the Government are seen to have thought these matters through and to have explained them carefully to the House before we accept the measure.

Mr. William Ross: If the Bill had contained a reference to Northern Ireland when it went into Committee, the consideration that we gave to it would have been somewhat different. In those circumstances, and in view of the terrorist situation in Northern Ireland, the effect of the Bill on the supply of weapons to terrorists would have been carefully considered. There will now have to be references to Northern Ireland in every part of the Bill because, despite the amendments, the ramifications will go much further.
A number of questions relating to the two new clauses have not been fully considered. I wish to point out to the Minister that we do not have a proof house in Northern Ireland. If the guns, or weapons of whatever kind, have to be brought across to Britain for the work to be carried out, the cost will be greatly increased. If we then have to look for gunsmiths to do the work in Northern Ireland and the work has to be done in a rush, rather too many weapons will be in the hands of individual gunsmiths for at least some time and no one wishes that to happen.
Above all, we shall have the problem of ·410 conversions. For many years, it was possible to buy the old ·303 ex-Army rifle, converted to a ·410 bolt action. There are many such weapons throughout the United Kingdom. Although it is not the most popular sporting weapon, there are many ·410s and converted ·410s lying around in farms all over the country. As I understand it, those weapons are caught by the legislation, as any ex-bullet firing weapons will be.
It is my understanding—I have consulted people who know and give evidence in court cases about such matters—that the weapon normally used by a criminal is a clapped-out sawn-off shotgun, if only for the good reason that a good quality shotgun is worth far more on the black market as a shotgun than it would ever be to a criminal. If a weapon looks capable of being fired, it is sufficient for the criminal's purposes.
However, there is a real problem when one considers new clause 2(b), which relates to the expertise available to the Home Secretary. I have not been as impressed by that expertise as I would like to be, because it appears to fall short of what is required for the purposes of the Bill, even before it was amended. If the Home Office is to advise on what sort of work must be carried out, that advice will have to be based on detailed knowledge of the most intricate type of weapons. Has the Home Office such a person on its staff? I believe that it has not, and, therefore, I wonder where it will go for that information and advice and what it will cost.
We shall be dealing with hundreds of different types of weapons, not one, and many of them will be mechanically different from others. The methods of deactivation that apply in some instances will not apply in others. We shall reach the stage when there will be one-off operations. I do not understand how this system will be carried through


into practical effect, unless the Minister is prepared to allow the gunsmith to determine whether the work that he has carried out is sufficient. If the police decide subsequently that the work is not sufficient, who will end up in court—the gun owner or the chap who carried out the work?
The Government are entering an area that they would have been well advised to avoid. No evidence was produced on Second Reading or in Committee—nor will there be any such evidence on Report—that the weapons that we are discussing pose a serious problem in criminal activity. Anyone who knows anything about the subject is aware of that.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I think that we all listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say on these matters with considerable respect. Does he agree that converted weapons are often of relatively low resale value? If the cost of carrying out the identification marking is high, there is a greater chance that it will not be acceptable to the gun-owning public. That means that there will be more evasion in this instance than with more expensive and valuable weapons.

Mr. Ross: That is correct. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has picked up so early in our deliberations this evening an issue to which we shall probably return on more than one occasion. He has raised a matter of concern to those who know about these matters, and it is a concern that I share.
It is probable that the Government will label the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and myself as members of the pro-gun lobby. I admit that I shoot. I do not shoot much, however, because I do not have a lot of time in which to do it after attending this place. If there is an hon. Member who is concerned about the safety of the general public in terms of firearms, it must be me. I have been to the funerals of many who have died as a result of the misuse of firearms. I do not know exactly how many I have represented in the county of Londonderry who have died as a result of terrorism, but I made a rough count some weeks ago and the total came to about 350. No matter what is said in the House or alleged in the media, I hope that I shall not be accused of being unreasonably or madly pro-gun.
I know what I am talking about. I know as much about firearms and their use by terrorists and criminals as any man. I cannot see much good in this part of the Bill and I see very little that is good in the Bill as it has been drafted and presented to the House.
Some of those who considered the Bill in Committee appeared to me to be anti-gun, to put it mildly. They were mainly Opposition hon. Members. Slowly but surely they allowed themselves to be convinced by the force of the arguments that were advanced and to be influenced by the Government's failure adequately to respond to them. They came to understand that what I and others were arguing was based on a solid foundation. If the Government had acknowledged that there was a problem and had agreed that they should return next year with a better organised, better presented and better looking Bill, we should not have the mess of amendments that are set out before us. If the Government had adopted that approach initially, they would not have had to live through such a difficult Second Reading and Committee stage.
The Government must know that this is not a good Bill. Unfortunately, they are committed to it. There is nothing worse than for a Government to proceed with a measure that they know in their heart and mind is inherently bad and will bring no good purpose to the House.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I should like to question the Under-Secretary of State about imported deactivated weapons, which have not been referred to so far. Would other countries with a suitably high and effective standard of deactivation be allowed to send such weapons here? Could our marks, which we have been asking my hon. Friend to say more about, be readily recognised by other countries, and would their marks be recognised in this country? We are not the only country with firearms legislation.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on the effect of the Bill in terms of 1992. Only last week, I received from the Commission of the European Communities a copy of its proposal for a Council directive on the control, acquisition and possession of weapons. It is premature for this House to be debating now the amendment of our firearms legislation when the European Community is about to make its own proposals. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to comment on the Commission directive, dated 28 July, and say what will happen on 1 January 1993 if harmonisation in Europe is achieved on that date. What will happen then to deactivated weapons?

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in some European countries it is possible legally to own two or three-inch mortars, for example. This was referred to briefly in Committee, and the Minister said something to the effect that good care would be taken to protect British interests. I did not hear him expand upon that to any extent in terms of harmonisation.

Mr. Colvin: I do not want to digress too far on this subject. The point that I am making is that I think it is quite wrong for the House to pass the Bill without considering the impact of harmonisation. That is why [put my question to the Minister at an early stage. I think that his answer would help to clarify our minds on what follows.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I support the argument advanced from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on the inherent ambiguity in paragraph (b). The precise meaning of the paragraph is far from clear. It is for the Minister to explain precisely what interpretation should be placed upon it. One cannot help feeling that this is yet another example of a rather hasty reaction to the unhappy events of last summer. First, there was the hasty production of a White Paper, which was followed by the hasty production of the Bill. I think that it is fair to say that the Bill has had hardly a friend in the House as it has proceeded through its various stages.
Secondly, it is obviously necessary that some consideration be given to ensuring that the persons who may be approved, in addition to the two proof houses, are gunsmiths located throughout the United Kingdom. It would be especially onerous, for example, if someone living in the far north of Scotland were unable to take a weapon to Inverness, Aberdeen or somewhere of that


description to have the necessary work done to it, and instead had to ensure that the weapon was sent either to Birmingham or London.
I hope that the Minister will find it possible to respond to the invitation to provide more detail on precisely what sort of person the Secretary of State has in mind and the geographical distribution that he will be prepared to approve.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Deactivation is the subject of new clause 2. It is perhaps necessary to distinguish the two stages. There is the work of deactivation, which is done by a gunsmith. That is the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). The answer is a gunsmith—any old gunsmith who reckons that he is capable of doing the work of deactivation. That work, before it is effective in taking the gun out of the firearms legislation, must be approved by one of the two proof houses. The proof houses only certify the work: they do not do the work of deactivation.
A number of hon. Members have asked whether we intend to use the reserve power to nominate a number of certifying authorities. The answer is that it depends. The proof houses believe that they are capable of dealing with the volume of likely work. They are anxious to do it. We have no reason to doubt that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the reserve power to nominate another certifying person or authority if we find that the proof houses are not capable of doing the work of certification.

Mr. Pat Wall: How many weapons does the Minister expect to be deactivated and to go to the proof houses? I do not wish to be over-sarcastic, but the Home Office does not have a good record in predicting numbers. The mess with the 120,000 unopened letters at Lunar house, the chaos because of the miscalculation on the issue of new passports, and the large numbers of people on remand in prison who will eventually be released having been found not guilty do not show that the Home Office has a good forecasting record. Has the Home Office thought about how many weapons will have to be dealt with and whether the two proof houses can deal with them?

Mr. Hogg: Deactivated guns have been treated hitherto as falling outside the scope of the firearms legislation. It follows that there is no record of the number of guns that will be affected by the legislation. I cannot, therefore, answer the question. This is one reason why the reserve power has been included to extend the certifying authority to others, if necessary.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: There is the issue that these firearms must be transported to the proof houses. I think that I am right in saying that.

Mr. Hogg: indicated assent.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees. Does this part of the Bill apply to Northern Ireland? If so, are we to have firearms brought from Northern Ireland to the two proof houses on this side of

the water? What happens in the Customs channel when firearms are brought in and taken back to Northern Ireland from this side of the water?

Mr. Hogg: The answer to that specific question is that this part of the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: rose——

Mr. Hogg: I should like to proceed, if I may.
A number of hon. Members have asked, understandably, about the nature of the mark. The intention is that the proof houses will engrave a view mark on the three major parts of the deactivated weapon. That will be evidence of the fact that the gun has been deactivated and that the work of deactivation has been done to the approved standard.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have the power to set the necessary standard of work. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked about the meaning of paragraph (b). The phrase
approved by the Secretary of State
as having been rendered incapable relates to the work which must be done to a standard approved by the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked about imported guns. If other countries have a system similar to ours, and deactivate weapons and place a mark to signify that fact, that mark will not be accepted in this country. If they wish to import deactivated weapons into this country and wish them to be outside the scope of the firearms legislation, they will have to submit them to the proof houses for approval in the same way as any other person operating within the jurisdiction.

Mr. Colvin: What about the visitor to this country?

Mr. Hogg: If a visitor comes to this country with a deactivated weapon which is not proof marked in the way that I have described, it is caught by the ordinary provisions of the firearms legislation. I should be surprised if my hon. Friend wanted it otherwise. A number of weapons that are sometimes described as deactivated are not in the least deactivated and can readily be used to fire as a lethal weapon. We should set up proper protection for our fellow citizens, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish us to do that.
There is apprehension about conversion. That may well be my fault, in which case I apologise. It is true that clause 7 as originally presented to the House on Second Reading and in Committee enshrined within it the proposition that a gun could not by conversion ever change its original categorisation—if it started life as a section 5 gun, it always remained a section 5 gun; if it started life as a section 1 gun, it always remained a section 1 gun, even if work had been done to turn it into a shotgun or airgun. That proposition was criticised, and I understand why, so we qualified the position substantially.
The proposition which we originally brought forward remains now as it always was in respect of section 5 guns—if a gun starts life as a section 5 gun, it will always remain a section 5 gun in the eyes of the law, whatever is done to it. That proposition does not apply in respect of section 1 guns having a barrel length in excess of 24 in. In respect of a section 1 gun, for example a Lee Enfield rifle, which has


been smooth-bored so as to take a ·410 cartridge and thus becomes a shotgun, it is not a section 1 gun any more—it is a shotgun.
The new clause has the effect of allowing people to transform their section 1 rifle into a shotgun if they wish without the necessity of getting any certification to prove it. That does not apply in respect of those guns with a barrel length of less than 24 in. The most obvious and gross examples are pistols which are smooth-bored which can still fire a pistol cartridge but which hitherto were treated as section 2 guns when they should have been treated as section 1 guns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) expressed some doubt about the meaning of subsection (2) of new clause 3. That deals only with those section 1 guns which have a barrel length of less than 24 in. The character of such a gun cannot be changed by downward conversion into, say, a shotgun or an airgun.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend spell out, chapter and verse, when it is permitted to convert a rifle into a gun capable of taking a ·410 cartridge?

Mr. Hogg: That is the necessary consequence of new clause 3.
New clause 3 prevents only downward conversion of section 5 guns and section 1 guns with a barrel length of less than 24 in. What is not prohibited is lawful and therefore the position is as I stated. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has a Lee Enfield rifle which he wants to turn into a shotgun taking a ·410 cartridge, he can lawfully do that and hold that gun on a section 2 certificate, not a section 1 certificate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds raised a perfectly proper and interesting point about resleeving. Any gunsmith can lawfully carry out the process of resleeving as a result of section 4(2) of the Firearms Act 1968. On the other hand, if the end result is a gun with a barrel length of less than 24 in.—the process of conversion has produced a short-barrelled shotgun—the law in the Firearms Act 1968 survives, although it has been modified, and that gun will be held on a section 1 certificate, if it is held at all.
I hope that hon. Members will believe that I have tried to address the various points that have been raised. I know that there were complaints, particularly from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), that I did not go into immense detail when I opened the debate. If the House agrees, I would like in the debates in which I introduce Government amendments to deal with them in broad terms to begin with and then meet specific points. I believe that that will be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful for much of what the Minister has said to clarify these matters. However, he did not comment on the likely level of charges. I assume from what he has said that consultations have taken place with the proof houses. That must follow from what he said about the engravings on three separate parts of the weapon. Therefore, the proof houses will have had the opportunity to say how much that would cost. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on that.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) raised an important point as to whether, and if so how, the police have been consulted over the marks to ensure that they are readily identifiable.
It follows from what the Minister said that, in his words, any gunsmith can carry out the deactivation work. However, the weapon will then have to go to the proof house for it to authorise that the work has been carried out properly. What happens if and when that weapon arrives at the Birmingham proof house? I must declare an interest and say that I hope that most of the weapons will go to Birmingham rather than elsewhere.
What will happen if the proof house believes that the quality or standard of engraving is inferior and is not satisfied that it has been carried out properly? Will it improve the engraving to the acceptable standard that it is authorised to provide? Will the weapon have to go through the mail or Red Star back to the gunsmith who originally carried out the work? If the work is to be carried out by the proof house, presumably it would have to contact the weapon's owner and state that it is not satisfied and inform the owner that it can re-do the work to the standard which the Secretary of State authorises it to reach, but that will cost the owner a certain sum. It would be for the convenience of the House if the Minister could answer those practical points about the engraving marks.

Mr. William Ross: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Ross: The Minister alarmed me when he said that this section of the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. What are the corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland? I am sure that they exist. With regard to the importation of weapons, will the proof houses have to see each weapon that is imported and deactivated?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office is sitting beside me on the Government Front Bench, it would be presumptuous of me to make any comment on Northern Ireland, and I do not propose to do so.
With regard to charges, at present the proof charge is about £3·43. I would not wish to tie the charge down to a particular figure, but I expect that it would be of that order.
With regard to consultation with the police, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds was right, and I should have responded to him. Of course the police will be consulted about the nature of the mark. In response to the question about the mark raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), he will bear in mind that the mark must be approved by the proof house. In fact, it is the proof house mark.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It is essential that this matter is absolutely clear. My hon. Friend the Minister said that this part of the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. What then is to happen in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hogg: As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am always a man to duck a question when I can. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office is sitting beside me, I will leave that question which relates specifically to Northern Ireland to him.

Mr. Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be for the convenience of the House to invite the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office to clear up this matter, because this is of some importance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to invite the Minister to speak.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Following from the last comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister, will he clarify whom he means by the police when he says that he will consult the police? I hope that he does not mean the Metropolitan police. I do not think that any sporting bird can be found it that area. By the police, I hope that he means the more rural forces such as those in Devon and Cornwall. This is a serious point, because my hon. Friend the Minister has had so much bad advice in the drafting of the Bill that he must disabuse himself of the belief that the monopoly of wisdom and experience reposes in the Metropolitan police. Who does he mean when he says that he will consult the police?

Mr. Hogg: In the first instance at least we would consider the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is the normal channel for consultation in those circumstances. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds felt that that was an insufficient consultative process he would let me know and inform me in respect of those whom he has hitherto so admirably represented in this place and elsewhere. We would give his views careful consideration.

Mr. Paul Marland: Does that not underline the serious need for a statutory committee to advise the Home Office on those matters?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend will be aware that the proposal before the House recommends a statutory consultative committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

CONVERSION NOT TO AFFECT CLASSIFICATION

'(1) Any weapon which has at any time (whether before or after the passing of this Act) been a weapon of a kind described in section 5(1) of the principal Act as amended by or under section 1 above shall be treated as a prohibited weapon notwithstanding anything done for the purpose of converting it into a weapon of a different kind.

(2) Any weapon which—

(a) has at any time since the coming into force of section 2 above been a weapon to which section 1 of the principal Act applies; or
(b) would at any previous time have been such a weapon ifthose sections had then been in force,

shall, if it has, or at any time has had, a barrel less than 24 inches in length, be treated as a weapon to which section 1 of the principal Act applies notwithstanding anything done for the purpose of converting it into a shot gun or an air weapon.'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Bearing in mind the background of the 1968 Act, there are no copies in the Vote Office. I have the only copy, which I obtained from the Library. I raise that point of order so that my hon. Friends may know where to find it.

New Clause 4

CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

'(1) An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule I to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which states that it is made only for purposes corresponding to those of provisions of this Act to which this section applies—

(a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.

(2) This section applies to—

(a) section 1(1), (2) and (4);
(b) section 7;
(c) section 8(1), (3) and (6);
(d) section 9;
(e) section 10(5) and (6);
(f) section 17(1);
(g) section 19(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6).'.—[Mr. Stanley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the proposed new clause: (a), leave out line 9.

(b), leave out line 10.
(c), leave out line 11.
(d), leave out line 12.
(e), leave out line 13.
(f), leave out line 14.
(g), leave out line 15.

It will also be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
Amendment No. 102, in clause 20, page 10, line 38, before 'This', insert
'Except for—

(a) section 1(1), (2) and (4);
(b) section 7;
(c) section 8(1), (3) and (6);
(d) section (9);
(e) section 10(5) and (6);
(f) section 17(1);
(g) section 19(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6);

Mr. Stanley: The House will be aware that, because of the security situation, firearms control in Northern Ireland is extremely tight and it is necessary to take an altogether more restrictive approach to the possession of firearms there than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Strict controls over the possession of firearms are exercised by the Chief Constable through the discretionary powers given to him under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Those powers are subject to a right of appeal to Ministers. However, we are concerned that the basic statutory provisions in relation to firearms controls in Northern Ireland should remain in line with those for the rest of the United Kingdom. As the changes now being given effect in Great Britain under this Bill would in some areas represent useful minor improvements and refinements of the existing statutory controls in Northern Ireland, we felt that it was right to take advantage of this Bill to make certain corresponding changes to Northern Ireland's legislation.
The purpose of new clause 4 is to provide authority for the making of an Order in Council subject to the negative resolution procedure to apply in Northern Ireland those provisions of the Bill specified in the new clause.


Subsection (1) of the new clause enables the negative resolution rather than the affirmative resolution procedure to be applied to the proposed Northern Ireland Order in Council. It is felt that that is the more appropriate procedure, given the fact that the Order in Council must be limited to the provisions of new clause 4 and that the House will have had an opportunity to consider new clause 4 in this debate.
As to subsection (2)(a), the specially dangerous weapons and ammunition now prohibited by clause 1 of the Bill are already prohibited to the public in Northern Ireland. That is achieved by the Chief Constable exercising his discretionary powers under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 rather than by specific statutory prohibition. Paragraph (a) will keep the statutory controls in Northern Ireland for those types of specially dangerous weapons and ammunition in line with those in Great Britain. It will have no effect on firearms certificate holders in Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: Before the Minister leaves the subject of firearm certificates, will he make it clear that all firearms in Northern Ireland, including shotguns, have to be held on a firearms certificate? That is the great difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stanley: I certainly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says.
I turn to paragraph (b). In common with the Firearms Act 1968, the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 specifies that one photograph must accompany firearm certificate applications. Administrative experience has shown the value of having two photographs in such circumstances, and in practice two are already supplied. The opportunity presented by the Bill has been taken to enable an amendment to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to include reference to the provision of two photographs. That is achieved by paragraph (b).
In Northern Ireland, the registration of firearms dealers takes place on 1 January each year. To extend the period of registration of firearms dealers in Great Britain to three years without reciprocal action in Northern Ireland legislation would put Northern Ireland dealers at a relative disadvantage, in that they would have to pay a registration fee annually rather than triennially. We also consider it desirable to provide in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain that a dealer whose name has been removed from the register of dealers should surrender his register of transactions. That is to prevent the loss of records which may be of subsequent use to the police. Those amendments to Northern Ireland legislation are achieved by paragraph (c) of subsection (2).
In Northern Ireland at present, there are no physical security requirements asked of auctioneers, carriers and warehouse men who handle and transport firearms. All others who handle firearms, such as dealers and authorised repair agents, are required to provide extensive security. Paragraph (d) will enable those businesses to be required to take reasonable precautions for the security of firearms and ammunition under their control.
Paragraph (e) will provide for police powers of entry and inspection of rifle and pistol club premises to ensure that a club is operating according to its authorisation. At present, police may enter and search club premises only if it is suspected that an offence has been committed.

Paragraph (e) will make possible improved monitoring of rifle and pistol clubs to ensure that their activities are fully in accordance with their terms of authorisation, which are given under article 54 of the 1981 order.
Paragraph (f) is a minor consequential amendment. Powers exist under article 13 of the 1981 order enabling the Secretary of State to authorise the use of a prohibited weapon subject to appropriate safeguards in theatrical or other performances. This paragraph brings the list of such prohibited weapons up to date, in line with the changes made by the Bill.
Paragraph (g) deals with interpretation and supplementary provisions. They will enable definitions, time limits for prosecutions and detailed rules for the serving of notices and exemptions contained in the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to be carried over to the new Order in Council.
Finally, consequential amendment No. 21 will enable new clause 4 to come into effect after enactment of the Bill, subject to the negative resolution Order in Council that will be based upon it. Amendment No. 22 makes the necessary amendment to apply new clause 4 to Northern Ireland.
Now that I have explained new clause 4, the House may agree that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was entirely right in responding to the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) by saying that new clause 4 either reflects in the statute what is already existing practice or makes extremely minor changes in Northern Ireland legislation.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend sits down, what he has not explained to the House, and what l think needs explaining, is why what he has said was not equally true when the Bill was in draft. Why is this brought in by, as it were, a side wind at Report stage, rather than having been embodied in the Bill when it was in draft? Does his own Secretary of State never meet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? The House needs to know.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made the perfectly fair point that he was prevented from taking part in certain debates in Committee on the ground that at that stage the Bill did not apply to Northern Ireland. If there are not amendments down to a given clause now that the Bill is on the Floor of the House, he will not have the opportunity of debating it here either. My right hon. Friend has an obligation to tell the House why the case that he is making now is not an equally good case for having embodied it in the Bill in the first place.

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will know as well as anyone that the Bill has been the subject of considerable debate, and that there have been a number of changes in Government policy and thinking as it has evolved. It was not possible when the Bill was introduced to take a final view on whether it would be sensible to make what are, as I have sought to explain, very minor changes in Northern Ireland legislation. By the time that the Bill had made some progress in Committee, it had become apparent that there could be a useful degree of tidying up of the statutory provisions. At the end of March, my hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who leads for the Opposition, saying that we intended to make these relatively minor changes when the Bill reached the Report stage.

9 pm

Mr. William Ross: We have just heard what I can only describe as an astonishing admission from the Minister. He has confirmed what all of us who have taken an interest in the Bill have known since it first saw the light of day—that it was not properly thought through, but was a knee-jerk reaction. Only as it progressed and people such as myself asked more and more questions about it did it become apparent not only to the Home Office but to the Northern Ireland Office that here was a vehicle that could be used.
This is a most unusual procedure. The Government cannot get away with saying that it was a convenient way of doing things. On every other occasion when they have wanted to bring the firearms law, and indeed many other laws, in Northern Ireland into line with those in Great Britain they have brought in an order. There is no reason why that should not have been done on this occasion.
Do not get me wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want the House to think that I object to United Kingdom legislation. On the contrary, I welcome it. What I cannot stand is this measure being slipped in as an afterthought, and an afterthought it most assuredly was. I can take no other meaning from the Minister's speech.
The Minister also told us that the application of the legislation to Northern Ireland was largely unnecessary. That is clear to those of us who know anything about firearms and the firearms law in Northern Ireland. We know that it is extremely tight. We know that looking for a standard full-bore self-loading rifle is like looking for hens' teeth. It is not easy to obtain such a weapon, or even any high-powered centre line rifle. Firearms certificates simply are not granted for such weapons—not that the IRA uses legal weapons anyway. God knows it ships them in from elsewhere by the shipload, and it is not the kind of stuff that it is using anyway. The plain truth is that such weapons, in the hands of sympathisers with terrorist organisations, could presumably be used for training purposes and to allow people to acquire expertise in handling firearms.
I well understand that, and well understand also the restrictions that have been applied. However, I have a serious objection to the procedure that is being used. Let me explain the reasons for the amendments put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and myself. First, we wished to draw attention to our dissatisfaction with the procedure. We wanted to give the House an opportunity to discuss in relation to Northern Ireland all that was discussed in Committee, and anything else that occurred to us since. It seems to be the fashion nowadays to think of more and more as the passage of a Bill continues. Certainly that is the line of action that the Government have been following. That opportunity is open to the House this evening.
Amendment No. 102 deals with the part of the Bill that says that the legislation does not apply to Northern Ireland. If the Minister is honest, I think that he will confess that the method that we have proposed for extending the provisions to Northern Ireland is much neater and simpler than the route that he has chosen. I hope that he will accept amendment No. 102 and withdraw his new clause. I would find that a perfectly satisfactory course, after we have thoroughly explored the application of these slabs of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
Later—probably much later—the House will have an opportunity to discuss whether there should be two, or three, photographs. My experience, as the holder of a firearms certificate, is that the police expect me to produce two photographs. One of the photographs is on the firearms certificate. The second is held in police headquarters, where it is of little use to anybody, except to those in police headquarters. It is looked at every three or four years. A third photograph would be most welcome. The local station would then be provided with a photograph. That point has been put to me most strongly, and I hope that the Minister will take note of it and move in that direction.
There is so much that one could say about all these clauses. I could spend all evening on them. These amendments are the heart and soul of the Bill and caused the most anger in Committee. The Government had to consider them very carefully. They were introduced as a direct result of the Hungerford incident.
Why have the Government introduced the Bill? Why have they decided to proceed in this way at this time? Every honest person knows that this was the Government's reaction to the Hungerford massacre. Their excuse was that the law was insufficient to deal with Hungerford. That point has been raised again in this debate, and so far there has been no satisfactory answer to it.
I shall attempt to run through some of the events on that dreadful day. The shock of that massacre spread throughout the whole island of Great Britain and muddied people's thinking. I was distant from it but, sadly, I was all too well aware of the reaction—of the numb horror that can strike a community after such an incident. However, I had the advantage, apart from being distant from it, of 20 years of terrorism; an advantage which I could well do without and which I should be very happy to do without. Nevertheless, those experiences are with me, with the result that I tend to take a cooler look at such incidents than do those who have them thrust in their faces for the first time.
The Bill will have no effect on terrorist activity. By their very nature, terrorists are lawbreakers. They will be unconcerned about any law that is passed to control firearms. They will steal them if they find them handy, but a terrorist who is serious in his intentions does not rely upon a few .22 rifles or even self-loading rifles. He relies to a large extent upon far more lethal machinery and upon high explosives. That has been proven day after day, and happened in Londonderry last night.
Who, or what, are we trying to control by the Bill and by the other firearms legislation? We are trying to keep firearms out of the hands of known criminals, yet I am told that it is possible for people who are suspected of engaging in criminal activities to visit pistol galleries in Great Britain and shoot to their heart's content. There is nothing to stop their doing so. If we can identify them, I believe that it is our duty to keep firearms of all types out of the hands of those who are actually or potentially mentally unstable. That is extremely difficult, but I have tabled an amendment to cover that point, which I hope the House will consider carefully.
There are people who have a history of violence, although it may not be classed as criminal violence. There are people who have suffered some mental illness, and who may well suffer from mental illness again, and there are people who show a general lack of responsibility. Perhaps that is more apparent in young men than it is in older


people, but responsibility is important for those who own and handle firearms. That covers the majority of the groups from whom we should actively endeavour to keep firearms. Hon. Members may think of other smaller groups and categories, but I believe that I have encompassed most of them.
Most people who own firearms have been so well screened by their peers or by the police that very few legally held weapons are ever used in crime. In addition to the Firearms Acts, police forces have a code which they impose. I consider that the present law and the code of practice carried into effect by the Thames Valley police should have been sufficient to stop Mr. Ryan getting his weapons. I understand that the Thames Valley police enjoy a fairly high reputation with shooting clubs. That makes it all the more sad that on this occasion they appear to have fallen short of those high standards.
The questions that I have asked and the very slow dribble of information that appeared to the world as a result of that sad story should not be allowed to go unnoticed. There are lessons which have not properly been absorbed or learnt by the House, by the country and possibly by the police. If they have, nothing has been published that convinces me that those lessons have been learnt. Although chief constables can issue firearms certificates whenever they wish, they do not do so. They lay down strictures as to who may or may not have firearms. The special procedures created by the Thames Valley police force——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been waiting patiently to see how the hon. Gentleman relates the substance of his argument to the new clause under discussion and the amendments to it. I am finding it very difficult to do so. It would be quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to go into detail on events arising from the Hungerford occurrence.

Mr. Ross: I bow to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was hoping to prove that if the police in charge of the Hungerford occurrence had applied their own regulations, which must be co-existent with the firearms law, that situation would not have arisen. The amendments will not prevent someone like Ryan in future legally laying his hands on firearms unless the police carry out their procedures absolutely accurately and fully. In that context I was hoping to draw attention to the fact that the police had not really followed their code of practice. Whether they would follow the proposed firearms legislation, or whether they followed firearms legislation in force at that time, is open to debate. The amendments do not make sense unless the administration procedure used by the police in all cases is properly followed.
It is only by example that one can come to a full understanding of how the firearms law operates in practice. When one considers the history of the Ryan saga and how he got his firearms, one begins to wonder how closely the police followed the law. One then has to question whether the police will follow any amendments that we may make, even in regard to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Thames Valley police did not follow their own guidelines when they allowed Michael Ryan to have a firearms certificate. He will know that Ryan had been a probationary member of the Dunmore shooting centre for three months and that, in September

1986, that was the only requirement that the club required for full membership. After three months, when Ryan applied to the Thames Valley police, he was given a firearms certificate on the basis of his membership of the centre and of his being a consistent shooter at it.
Because the centre used only pistols, Ryan joined a club with a rifle range and applied to have rifles added to his certificate. He was allowed the addition to his certificate. The hon. Gentleman has tried to claim that, because Ryan did not go through the full procedure, but obtained a firearms certificate as a result of membership of Dunmore, he was somehow beyond the law when he obtained his rifle certificate. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is wrong and that the chief constable was right in believing that, once he awarded a certificate, the addition of another weapon to the certificate was not——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. Moreover, what I feared when I reproached the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) is now happening—instead of discussing how relevant the application of parts of the Bill are to Northern Ireland, we are having a House of Commons inquiry into the Hungerford occurrence, and we are not going to have that.

Mr. Ross: I am sorry that we shall not have such an inquiry. There does not seem to be any great willingness to have one outside either.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Such an inquiry would be quite irrelevant to a discussion of new clause 4.

Mr. Ross: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope, however, to be able to follow up the matter in another context. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has been a personal friend for many years, but I must tell him that the police code demanded a six-month probationary period. When the police officer arrived to inspect the arrangements, he was bound to be shown the Dunmore card. I understand that Ryan had only a probationary card, which was a quite different colour from the full membership card.
There is much more to say about the Ryan affair. No doubt it will be possible to say some of it before the night is done. My amendments—(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g)—cover all the matters that occupied the first sitting of the Standing Committee. These issues were the source of much pain and difficulty. I was left with the impression of the Government making a knee-jerk reaction. That is not appropriate for the Government. Firearms legislation is extremely important and we should be absolutely clear about our objectives before we embark on it. The Government are acting in haste. They have not sat down and thought through seriously the effects of what they are proposing.
There is no point in passing law for Northern Ireland which will simply annoy the law abiding. God knows they have had reason enough in the past few years to be annoyed at Government action. The small group of people who are fortunate enough to be able to practise full-bore rifle shooting and to take part in international competition will now be clobbered and, to put it mildly, that is unfortunate. They will say to me, to the Government and to every public representative, "Why have you done this? Why are you attacking us when there is a far bigger firearms problem in this country which, after 20 years, you


have not resolved?" When the Minister eventually replies, those are the questions to which he should address his mind.
The Minister has told us that most of those things are already covered by existing police powers in Northern Ireland. I have pointed out to the House that it is practically impossible to get a firearms certificate for a full-bore rifle in Northern Ireland. The Minister has told us that the amendments that have been tabled are minor. They are so minor that they could have been run through the House on the nod after 10 o'clock some evening if the Minister had cared to produce a little order or a statutory instrument. He now has before him his own cumbersome and inept way of extending the legislation to Northern Ireland. He also has before him a carefully drawn amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley and myself. That amendment has the same effect.
I hope that the Minister will get to his feet shortly and say that he will accept amendment No. 102 and reject his own, because I believe that is the most sensible and reasonable way to proceed. My amendment will have the same effect as his own and will get over some of the constitutional fury that his present procedure has aroused.
There is a great deal more that I should like to say on this important issue. However, there are a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches who expressed their concern in Committee. I hope that it will be possible to leave it to them to follow up this matter and to make the same arguments in relation to Northern Ireland as they made in relation to Great Britain. I also hope that this is the last time that I shall see such a miserable procedure used to extend any legislation to the Province, part of which I have the honour to represent.

Mr. Colvin: I have one simple, short question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. It concerns the legislation that we are in the process of amending. New clause 4 proposes to change the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The Home Office produced a memorandum in response to the publication of a Council directive by the European Commission on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. The Home Office memorandum addressed the impact of that directive on United Kingdom law. It said that
The relevant legislation of Great Britain is the Firearms Act 1968
—which we are in the process of amending. It also said that the relevant legislation for Northern Ireland was the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
When my right hon. Friend comes to reply, will he confirm that we are in the process of amending the right piece of legislation because it would be a waste of the time of the House if we did the wrong thing?

Mr. Corbett: I am delighted that the Minister of State Northern Ireland Office is here tonight. I would like to apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who is not here for precisely the reason that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and others have complained about—the way in which the Government changed their mind about the extension of many of the provisions of the Bill to cover Northern Ireland when that was not mentioned on Second Reading and when, as the

hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, discussion on it was not possible in Committee. It gets worse than that. Standing Committee F, which discussed the Bill, had its last sitting on 11 March 1988. The letter I received from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department bears the date 22 March. I understand that it is reasonably rare for letters to be written on the date they bear at the top. In many cases, as right hon. and hon. Members will know, the month and the year are typed and when the Minister is topping and tailing the letter he will chalk in the date. The date on this letter is typed and, it has to be said, it was certainly drafted well before 22 March because it had to shunt through various procedures and it ended up in that famous grey area in the Home Office where it is decided whether it is fit and proper to present it, even to the Under-Secretary of State.
It is fair to assume that the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office were in consultation over extending the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland while our Committee was sitting. Should the Minister catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he will be kind enough to tell us at what stage he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made representations to the Home Secretary about extending the provisions to Northern Ireland or when he was invited by the Home Secretary to respond to the Home Secretary's suggestion that they should be extended to Northern Ireland.
The Government have treated the House, let alone the Committee, less than courteously. It is one of the hallmarks of the way in which the Bill has been handled since it first saw the light of day.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this has been a matter on which there has been rare cross-party agreement on many aspects; positive and negative. Unless things have changed, will the hon. Gentleman accept that it would not simply be a matter of negotiation between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? The legislation sub-committee of the Cabinet would have to give its consent to the importing into a Bill at this stage of no fewer than 16 changes to the law and, certainly, the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip would have had to consent to that being done. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that all that must have taken place while Standing Committee F, which did a first-class job on the Bill, was still in being.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because everything he said must be so. To that extent, the plot thickens. We are left with the question to which I hope the Minister will respond: why was this not in the Bill when it came to the House for Second Reading? If for some reason that was not possible, why were the amendments not mentioned by the Minister during the sittings of the Committee?

Mr. Frank Cook: Do I understand my hon. Friend correctly? Is he suggesting that, when the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) was seeking to make reference to conditions in Northern Ireland and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was advising him as Chairman of the Committee that references of that sort were improper, out of place and out of order, these matters were being considered behind closed doors?

Mr. Corbett: I am saying that that must be so. This move cannot have appeared out of a clear blue sky. It is not as if one of the Ministers involved suddenly stepped out of the bath one morning and thought to himself, "I know what I'll do today. I'll extend the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I've got nothing else to do and it will fill in the odd half hour".That does not bear thinking about.
9.30 pm
I apologise to hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee. I assumed—wrongly as it turned out—when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary wrote to me on 22 March that he had had the courtesy to write to every member of the Standing Committee. That would have been the proper thing to do, but I now know that it did not happen.
On the buy-in scheme—the compensation scheme—the Minister carried out the undertaking to inform members of the Standing Committee about the Government's proposals as far ahead of this debate as possible, and we are grateful to him for his courtesy in doing that. However, that was not done in respect of the proposals to extend some of the controls in the Bill to Northern Ireland.
I claim no more rights than any other member of the Standing Committee. It so happens that during most of the Committee's proceedings I led for the Opposition, but I do not want special treatment. Every member of the Standing Committee had an equal right to know that the Government were contemplating this major change. It was not contained in the original Bill and thus could not have been discussed on Second Reading—yet another subject that we were unable to discuss. I do not want to add to the Minister's discomfort, but he will remember the little altercation we had over trying to ensure that the Committee could discuss the matter of compensation if it wanted to. The Minister had to return to the House to seek approval for a second money order to make it possible for the Committee to discuss something that, on Second Reading, the Government had said that they were not going to do and did not want anything said about after Second Reading.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that usually, when Northern Ireland legislation is brought forward, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is informed. The letter may well have gone astray in the post but my right hon. Friend cannot recall ever receiving any such confirmation and neither can I. What sort of political skullduggery are the Government up to here? It is unbelievable that this could happen.

Mr. Corbett: This goes from bad to worse. Not only was the proposal kept from every member of the Committee but me—I assume that that was no accident—but now we hear that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was not told either. This may not comfort him, but he may be interested to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was not told. I do not know who was supposed to tell him, but whoever it was did not. From the way in which things work in this place one can assume that it was the responsibility of Northern Ireland Ministers to tell members of the Opposition and of other parties with a clear and well-known interest in Northern Ireland what had been suggested by the Northern Ireland Office to the

Home Secretary—or vice versa—or what, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said, had been agreed and decided at Cabinet level. What seems to have happened is that the responsibility did not simply disappear in a fog, but dropped down a big black hole.
Generally, I have no objection to the extension of these parts of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I do not know whether the Northern Ireland Minister has seen the Under-Secretary's letter, but he will agree with this because not only did his hon. Friend say it, but right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies confirm it. The Under-Secretary reminds me in his letter that
firearms controls in Northern Ireland are exercised under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
and adds that those controls
are generally tighter than those in Great Britain.
That compounds the mystery. If the controls are tighter and more stringent, for horrendous reasons that we all understand and accept, what is the need for the provision? If that need is as compelling as the Minister has implied because he says that the provision will help for the various reasons that he gave in moving the new clause, I must ask him again why those compelling reasons only partly saw the light of day in the Under-Secretary of State's letter to me of 22 March.
Would the police and security forces in Northern Ireland happen across a copy of the Bill on their way to work or pick it up in the canteen because somebody had left it there, and say, "Well, that seems a good idea. Let's have it."? Of course it does not happen like that. I ask the Minister to understand that I accept that. That emphasises this point: why did the Government act in that 'way, behind the back of the Committee and of Opposition Members with responsibilities for Northern Ireland? I do not believe that it is simply incompetence, although I suspect that that is part of it. Yet again, it is an illustration of the slipshod manner in which the Bill was prepared. That has led to the new clause and 176 other amendments on Report, 63 of them from the Government themselves. The Bill remains littered with confusion. There is confusion of purpose and confusion about the aim of the Bill. Having been through all those Committee sittings, I get the impression that not a single Minister or team of Ministers has sat down and said, "What do we want to achieve? What is the best way of achieving it?" Those are two straightforward and simple questions.
I listened to what the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, and I suspect that what happened in the wake of the appalling events in Hungerford was that senior officials at the Home Office were sent for and told, "We must do something. Give us a bit of paper." If that was so, it was a wholly improper way in which to proceed.
After that row and the argument about compensation in Committee, the Government have sprung another one on us late in the day. They say, "Trust us," giving the impression that it has only just been thought of.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am following closely what my hon. Friend is saying. I am trying to hang on to the same logic, but there is a difficulty that we should discuss. My hon. Friend agreed with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who suggested that when we spoke about Northern Ireland in Committee we were told that the Bill did not relate to it but that consultations were taking place behind closed doors almost simultaneously. On issues such as compensation and on at least two clauses


in the Bill, the Minister had to backtrack and go away. Initially he could not even get his sittings motion passed because matters were so ill-considered.
In my mind is the picture painted by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds of some kind of subterfuge and conspiracy. There is also the picture that I recall from Committee of gross ineptitude and lack of preparedness. I cannot equate one with the other. Perhaps my hon. Friend can come up with some explanation.

Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend illustrates the point well. I suspect that both things were happening at the same time and that the people involved in one did not know about the other. It is a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, and in this case both hands were probably held out of sight.
The Minister should be clear. Hon. Members want the most stringent and effective legal steps to try to reduce the number of murders carried out in Northern Ireland by terrorists using firearms. We object to the way in which the Government and the Minister have chosen to treat a topic that deserves and demands better consideration than we are able to give it on Report.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: As you have just come into the Chair, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should make it clear that references to my earlier remarks do not mean that I have spoken to this clause, and therefore I do not need to ask leave to speak again.
I approach the new clause more in sorrow than in anger, first, because I want the Bill as amended and I am off to Gibraltar in the morning and am anxious not to remain here throughout the night. Secondly, I have a very high regard for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, and for all the Home Office Ministers who have been occupied with the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that comment in the way that it is intended. I acquit them at once of any suggestion that they have engaged in subterfuge or conspiracy. I am tempted to quote the inelegant phrase of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who said the other day that it was more a matter of a cock-up than a conspiracy.
There is here an issue of important principle. Like many other hon. Members, I have no fundamental objection to the contents of the new clause and the amendments that it makes to no fewer than 16 sections or subsections of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. It is not a small matter, but I have no objections in principle, because effectively the provisions move into statute law what is already the practice of the police in Northern Ireland. There is certainly merit in making sure that the practice of the police has statutory cover. The Northern Ireland Office is not to be criticised for wanting to do that; nor should the Home Office be criticised for wanting to facilitate it.

Mr. William Ross: There is an important issue here, to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention. If it is police practice, it could easily be changed when circumstances in Northern Ireland change—when terrorism diminishes and we return to peaceful conditions. We are creating a body of law that will be very difficult to change even if it becomes desirable to do so.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: That is the hon. Gentleman's view and he has great knowledge of Northern Ireland, which I respect. I do not happen to share his view, because it is not the advice that I have received from the police. I am putting to the House a fundamental point about the way in which the Government have chosen to proceed. The lack of notice to the House as a whole has been wrong. The bad manners shown to members of Standing Committee F are disgraceful. That Committee worked extremely hard, and it was entitled to be told by the Government that this intention had been formed and approved of by the Cabinet before the Committee had ceased its work.
One should also protest at the exclusion from any consultation about the new clause and amendments of significant sections of our fellow countrymen. They might have had an interest in these changes, but have had no opportunity to discuss them since they came on the Amendment Paper last Thursday and we are dealing with them now, for the last time, on the following Monday. The exclusion of our fellow citizens from any effective consultation is a reprehensible way in which to proceed.
9.45 pm
I should remind my hon. Friend—he is a Northern Ireland Minister and therefore was not intimately involved in this legislation—that, on Second Reading, Northern Ireland was not just left out, but was explicitly excluded. In Committee, hon. Members who strayed into discussing Northern Ireland were reminded by the Chair that they should not do so because Northern Ireland was not included. Therefore, in my capacity as adviser to the police service, I did not consult the Northern Ireland Police Federation, as I would have done normally. I told the police that they did not need to apply their minds to this legislation because it did not apply to Northern Ireland. I did so on the authority not only of Ministers but of the Chairman of the Committee. What else could I do? The procedure throughout the Bill has been, to put it mildly, unsatisfactory.

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend's point is important, as is the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). If the Committee had known the decision had been made to apply the law to Northern Ireland, and if that been known to the House when we voted earlier on the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-mare (Mr. Wiggin), the House might have come to a different conclusion.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: That is as may be. In my judgment, if Standing Committee F had been made aware of the Government's intention to apply these clauses to Northern Ireland, the Committee would have assented. It was a good Committee, which considered these matters with great care. A Minister representing a Northern Ireland constituency served on it. If the matter had been given to us we would have debated it and come to the conclusion, based on their merits, that these amendments should be included. I have little doubt about that.
I do not object to the importing of different matter into the Bill on Report. Many of us who have served in government have seen this happen, and Governments of all complexions have done this. The procedure is not in any way outside the norms of Parliament. However, there are ways and means of doing it that were not followed in this case. For example—Mr. Speaker, your experience will probably bear this out—when a Government intend on


Report to add significant new matter to a Bill, it is often the case that a question is arranged so that it appears in Hansard and all Members are aware of what is intended. Alternatively, if the matter is of great importance, it can be set out in a statement. No statement was made and no question was answered. Worse than that, the only letter that was sent by the relevant Minister to any member of the Committee went to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). It was right that he should have received a letter, because he was leading for the Opposition, but the remaining members of the Committee were kept completely in the dark.
That was wrong, and I should like to make this suggestion to my hon. Friend who, in every respect, is an honourable man. Instead of trying to defend the Government's position, he should simply say that he is sorry. Occasionally mistakes are made, and in those cases the best thing to do is to apologise. The House will always understand that. It is far better to do that than to attempt to explain the unexplainable.
The Government have not got this right. There are no objections to the content. I, for one, hope that the amendments will be carried, but my hon. Friend should recognise that, in this case, the Northern Ireland Office has dropped him in it. It is a reflection of the fact that there is insufficient parliamentary scrutiny of what happens in Northern Ireland. All too often, officials of the Northern Ireland Office have told me that changes in the law that Ministers themselves want to see and that I, on behalf of the police service, have asked for—I can give many examples—have not been made because there has been no parliamentary opportunity.
There has been ample opportunity to make many other changes, and I am left with the impression that when it suits the Northern Ireland Office to insert certain matters into legislation at the last minute it will do it, but if it does not suit it, it does not want to know. That is the objection, and I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that that is not the way to proceed.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said that new clause 4 was unnecessary. I do not agree with him on that. However, new clause 4 and the statutory changes it makes are minor.
In view of the consideration of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, the consideration of the important policy issues of firearms control by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the fact that the Bill might result, in certain minor respects, in the statutory basis for firearms control in Great Britain being slightly more restrictive than in Northern Ireland, we believe that it would not be justifiable for the position in Northern Ireland, given the security situation there, to be any less tight in every respect than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
For example, we would not want to have a statutory list of prohibited weapons and ammunition that was less limited under Northern Ireland legislation than under legislation elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We would not want security precautions taken by auctioneers, carriers and warehousemen in Northern Ireland to be less stringent than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We would not want the statutory basis for monitoring rifle and pistol clubs to be less limited in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Those were effectively the three relatively minor areas in which, without new clause 4, we would have been slightly out of kilter with the rest of the United Kingdom. Given the security situation in Northern Ireland, we felt that that would not be a satisfactory note on which to end proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Why have the Government not chosen the affirmative resolution, but have used the negative procedure which is generally unsatisfactory, no matter how trivial the Minister regards the subject? The measure is being put to the House because it is regarded as important and I should therefore have thought that the affirmative procedure would have been best.

Mr. Stanley: If the hon Gentleman had been in his place when I moved new clause 4, he would know that I had dealt with exactly that point. The Order in Council that will come forward under new clause 4 will be based on the provisions of new clause 4 and the House has a full opportunity to debate those provisions this evening.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East referred to amendment No. 102, which stands in his name and that to his right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). He asked why we could not proceed with the direct extension of parts of the Bill to Northern Ireland rather than proceeding through the Order in Council procedure. Consideration was given to the desirability of making provision in the Bill for the direct extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions that are set out in the new clause. As the corpus of the law on firearms in Northern Ireland lies in the Northern Ireland statute book, to extend the provisions directly would render the law harder to find and more difficult to follow. It would require lengthy and complex amendments to be made to existing legislation. The hon. Gentleman hoped that his route would be neater and simpler, but that would not be so. That is why we decided to proceed by way of Order in Council.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister saying that firearms legislation in Northern Ireland is so different from that in Great Britain that it is impossible to follow the route that I have set out? If that is so, has it not been demonstrated once again how foolish it is to have the Northern Ireland statute book kept separate from the statute book for Great Britain? Instead, we should be dealing with Northern Ireland as if it were an integral part of the United Kingdom and included in United Kingdom Bills. That would be far more satisfactory to us in Northern Ireland than this miserable way of proceeding.
Finally, the Minister mentioned warehousemen and others. How many firearms have been stolen from warehouses and that sort of establishment over the past 20 years?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman might not agree with this view, but I am sure that he will recognise that there is a considerable body of opinion in Northern Ireland that welcomes the fact that there is a separate Northern Ireland statute book. Those who are sympathetic to the possibility of restoring devolved legislative arrangements in future would recognise the importance of maintaining these arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman has taken up my reference to warehousemen. The question that the hon. Gentleman


should ask himself is whether it could be justifiable in the security situation of Northern Ireland to have any lesser statutory arrangements for physical security precautions in such establishments than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked whether we were amending the right piece of legislation. I am happy to assure him that we are. The reference in the new clause to the 1974 legislation relates to proceeding by negative resolution rather than affirmative. The base legislation that will be changed by the substantive part of the new clause as opposed to the procedural part is the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who leads for the Opposition, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) both spoke of the way in which the new clause was brought forward and its timing. I was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman's contribution this evening was not one that he might have made at a somewhat earlier stage. He did not tell the House—I am sure that he would wish me to do so now—that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made it clear in his letter to him on 22 March that the new clause and amendments that we proposed to bring forward would be introduced on Report. We accept entirely the criticism which the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend made, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, that the letter of 22 March should have been sent to all Committee members to ensure that they were fully informed of what would take place. I convey our apologies to Committee members for the fact that that was not done. I understand that the drafting had still not been finalised before the Bill had left Standing Committee, so we would have had to bring forward the measure on Report. That is the explanation for the timing in bringing forward the measure.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Minister seeks to present a reasonable case and is doing a decent job in difficult circumstances. I congratulate him. Bearing in mind the comments of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) about the timing of the letter and the new clause, will the Minister explain why there was a two-month delay before tabling the new clause——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]

As amended (in the Standing Committee) again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Cook: Bearing in mind the need for consultation with the Police Federation, which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds represents, and the consultation which the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and his colleagues need, why did it take two months to table the new clause after the letter had come on 22 March?

Mr. Stanley: When my hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member for Erdington, the measure was still being finalised. I do not know exactly when it was finally

available. No doubt, further consideration was being given to the finer points of drafting. The substantive changes brought about by new clause 4 are small. I hope that neither the House nor people outside have lost very much by not having sight of the measure earlier.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I do not want to make heavy weather of this matter. I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue, but the right hon. Gentleman gave the House the impression that the measures were in the process of drafting while the Standing Committee was meeting. If so, that compounds the felony. That could and should have been mentioned while the Standing Committee was sitting.

Mr. Stanley: I cannot say precisely at what point the drafting began and was finished. There may have been some few days during the Committee's sittings when the parliamentary draftsmen were working on it. I believe that there was no possibility of tabling this measure in a final form during the Standing Committee's proceedings, as I have explained to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES

'After section 26(2) (b) of the principal Act (rules requiring verification of matters contained in applications for certificates) there shall be inserted—
(c) require any application for a certificate to be accompanied by a statement by the person verifying the matters mentioned in paragraph (b) above to the effect that he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm.".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause is to improve the application procedure. Section 26 of the Firearms Act 1986 provides for verification of the likeness of photographs and prescribes details. This provision in new clause 5 adds to a provision that will enable the Secretary of State to require the inclusion of a statement by the person verifying that he knows of no reason why the person who is making the application should not possess a firearm.

Mr. Corbett: New clause 5 sounds eminently reasonable. We want to take every sensible precaution to ensure that the applicant is, in the well understood phrase that is perhaps a little old hat, responsible and a person of good standing.
On what basis will the person signing the verification make the judgment that he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm? That is like proving a negative. It implies, but does not state, that the person verifying should not just know the applicant, but should have known him for a sufficiently long period to enable him, or her, responsibly to make a judgment. Probably the Minister can dispose of this quickly for me.
The new clause says nothing about the factors that must be taken into account. What is the person who is asked to sign the verification statement supposed to do if he is


aware that the applicant, five, six or 10 years ago, had a very severe mental illness, but is satisfied that the applicant is over that illness? None the less, that is part of the applicant's history. Is that a factor that must be taken into account?
A very senior and well respected Member of the House, in response to a constituent's request after the police had refused to issue him with a firearms certificate, gave the opinion that he knew of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm. The senior hon. Member knew the applicant—although not like a member of the family—and he was surprised when he was told that the local police has declined to issue the certificate. He signed the verification. He was confident and content that he had acted properly.
Some weeks later the local police telephoned him. He was told that the certificate had been issued, although against the better judgment of the police, and the person to whom the certificate had been issued had blown his brains out after a quarrel with his girlfriend. No one would question that the hon. Member concerned had acted anything other than correctly, and all of us who know the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. Had he not known the applicant seeking to have the application verified, he would not have signed it. He would not have signed it if he believed that it was wrong to do so. However, he signed it with tragic results.
Would it not be helpful for those called upon to make statements of verification to be given guidance about the factors that they should take into account? We are not talking about a photograph that accompanies a passport application. In that case, many hon. Members and other people are simply required on the form to say how long they have known the applicant and to certify that the likeness is true. Much more is at risk in verifying a statement in support of a firearms certificate than in signing the back of a passport photograph. Without wanting to he facetious, I do not know many people who have been battered to death with passports. This is an important matter.
If it will help to achieve the purpose which I believe the Minister intends, those who are invited to verify applications ought to be given explicit guidance about the basis on which they should make their judgments. If the Home Office and the police will merely require signatories to declare, "I have known Joe Bloggs for five years and can think of no reason why he should not be permitted to possess a firearm," and if the Government are saying that the signature is worth no more than that, I must question its value. I suspect that it is meant to mean more than that. I hope that it is, and that a signature of verification will be given after much weightier consideration. It will help the House if the Minister will spell that out.

Mr. Colvin: I follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) in questioning who precisely should be entitled to verify applications. In the case of passports, only certain people, such as Members of Parliament, are entitled to give verification. I do not know whether we are suitable people to verify whether or not a person should be granted a firearms certificate. If a list of suitable persons could be drawn up by the Home Office, it would be of assistance.
As to photographs, the law applying to passport applications provides that the person who signs the accompanying photograph commits an offence if his

statement proves to be false. In the case of a firearms application, will the person who verifies it also commit an offence if the applicant proves, with hindsight, to be unsuitable to hold a firearm? If that is a danger, it should be possible to include in the Bill a phrase that will provide for a statement made in good faith to be a let-off if the holder of the firearms certificate proves in time to be unsuitable. Perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify that point when he winds up the debate.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that this touches on a subject that was discussed in Committee? It concerns the whole question of the validity of the counter-signature on a firearms certificate application. The new clause places upon the general practitioner who counter-signs an application a requirement to know more about an applicant, rather than merely look at the 10 questions which precede his countersignature and agree that they have been answered correctly. My hon. Friend will know that one of those questions asks the applicant:
Do you suffer from any form of mental disorder or defect?".
I cannot imagine a general practitioner putting his signature to an application without examining the applicant concerned. If his signature is to serve as verification of the qualities of the person seeking the certificate he must ask himself, as a medical person, whether he will simply add his signature or will ask the applicant to his surgery for an examination and study his records. Such would be a wise precaution.
Although it is a fact that Michael Ryan's general practitioner signed his application, I wonder whether he would have done that quite so willingly if this new clause had been before him. He might himself have wished to take a second look at Ryan and consider his mental state before doing so. I impress on my hon. Friend that, although I entirely support the new clause, I wish to see it strengthened by introducing the concept of a medical examination before an applicant's signature is countersigned by a general practitioner. In that is not only the question of the person's mental state but also that of his physical ability to handle a weapon.

Mr. William Ross: One or two little questions disturb me. The Firearms Act 1968 requires
the verification in the prescribed manner of any prescribed particulars and of the likeness of any such photograph to the applicant.
But I am not sure what kind of person the new clause is talking about, and I should like an explanation.
A working party reported on the administration of the Act in 1984. I am sure that the Minister, having read the Bill assiduously, would also have taken time to read that report, and that he has looked at paragraph 48, headed "Counter signatures" which reads:
Rule 4 of the Firearms Rules provides that a shotgun certificate application form must be countersigned by a person of good standing, who has known the applicant personally for at least two years, to the effect that the information given on the form is, to the best of his knowledge correct. Many forces make no enquiries at all about countersignatories and the requirement seems to serve little useful purpose. There is no similar requirement in respect of firearms certificates. The Working Party accordingly recommends that the requirement of countersignatures in respect of shotgun certificates be dropped.
I am not sure that I can mesh together the statements in the various reports, Bills and orders amending Bills, but no doubt the Minister, who has had such a clear exposition of the Bill given to him by members of the Committee, will be able to make it all clear to us. I should like to know why the working party was able to come out with that statement, why the Bill seems to say something rather different and why the new amending Bill seems to be restoring an earlier position. I confess that I am becoming rather confused, and I should like some daylight—or perhaps a spotlight—cast upon the matter so that we can understand what it all means.

Sir Hector Monro: I too would like to know who will verify the application and the photograph. It is a very different kettle of fish from what many of us do in various walks of life, whether we are doctors, ministers, Members of Parliament or justices of the peace—verifying the likeness of a photograph for a passport. Here it is necessary to verify that a person is capable of holding a firearms certificate. As the matter is dealt with in section 26(2) of the 1968 Act, why is it only now that we are talking seriously about photographs when they could have been introduced administratively at any time in the past 10 years?
I also wonder about the efficiency of the photograph system. I do not think, when I look at my photograph in my London Underground pass, that anyone would know who it represented, and I am glad that that is so. But we should bear in mind that the photograph could be used by someone going to a gun shop to buy a weapon or ammunition. As it is not a legal requirement to carry a firearm certificate at all times, it will be of no great use when someone is out in the countryside with a weapon. What are the qualifications of the person who has to verify the application under section 26(2)(b) of the 1968 Act? The section does not specify who has to verify the application. We might make some progress if my hon. Friend could give some details about that.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I echo the point that was made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. It is strange that we are not considering an amendment that specifies what the verifier of the firearms certificate is supposed to be looking for. Without such an amendment, the Bill will not prevent such tragic events as Hungerford. We heard earlier that, had the existing legislation been correctly implemented, the Hungerford tragedy would never have happened.
I see no point in including this new clause in the Bill unless it covers the person who has to verify the application. Without that obvious criterion, it is administrative nonsense and serves no purpose whatsoever.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I agree that this is a modest procedural improvement. We are asking for a statement to the effect that a person is not unfit to possess a firearm. It is not a statement that a person is suited to hold a firearm. Few people would care to make that positive assertion. We consulted the British Medical Association, whose considered view was that general practitioners would not wish to be party to a verification procedure that obliged

them to make a positive assertion that somebody was fit to hold a firearm. It is a negative procedure, to the effect that somebody is not unfit to hold a firearm.
Questions have been asked about the identity of the people who will be asked to make such a statement. An example can be found in rule 4 of the 1969 firearms rules. Instances are Members of Parliament, justices of the peace, ministers of religion, doctors, lawyers, bank officers, or persons of similar standing who have known the applicant personally for at least two years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked about the offence. The position is dealt with in section 26(5) of the Firearms Act 1968, which provides:
It is an offence for a person to make any statement which he knows to be false for the purpose of procuring, whether for himself or any other person, the grant or renewal of a certificate under this Act.
Accordingly, if a person made a deliberately false statement under the proposed new clause, he would be caught, but if he were acting honestly and in good faith, he would not be committing an offence.

Mr. Frank Cook: As to the verifier's qualifications, the Minister appears to be saying not that he wants to make it harder for the applicant to obtain a firearms certificate but that he wants to make it easier for the verifier to do his job without difficulty or embarrassment. Is that his argument?

Mr. Hogg: No. I think that the hon. Gentleman is doing me an injustice, so I shall repeat what I have already said. I accept that this is a modest amendment. I do not think that we can impose on any person who is verifying an application the obligation to assert positively that the person making the application is fit to hold firearms. The hon. Gentleman must ask himself whether he would make such a positive assertion in respect of somebody else. I think that he would probably answer, no. Most of us can sensibly ask ourselves of a person we know whether there is any reason known to us why that person should not hold a firearm. The new clause seeks to address that question, and it is wholly reasonable to incorporate it into the legislation.

Mr. John Home Robertson: rose——

Mr. Hogg: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman; it is nice to see him here.

Mr. Home Robertson: If the Minister is happy to see me, he may hear more from me. I hope that the new clause is intended to be constructive. I presume that the Minister tabled it in such a spirit. It is building on part of the 1968 Act which provides simply for the verification of a photograph and adding to it a judgment as to whether someone is a suitable person to hold a firearm. He has given a list of ministers of religion, bank managers and Members of Parliament, but does he think that such a measure will add to the sum total of human safety in the United Kingdom if the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), who I do not think has taken his seat here, signed a document asserting that he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Section 26 of the principal Act is not confined to a verifying photograph; it also deals with the verification of a substantial number of relevant particulars.

Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend has read out the usual list of people who are permitted to do that. Does he agree that there is a vast difference between signing a verification of this kind and a passport application? If something goes wrong in regard to a passport, not too much discredit accrues to the person who did the signing, but I should have thought that a great deal of opprobium would attach to the person signing if the person who has the licence eventually goes wrong. It is a very difficult judgment for anyone to make, even under this procedure, and to sign his name. Indeed, a great number of people will opt out of signing.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend emphasises the difficulty which I previously stressed. Very few people would make the positive assertion that someone was fit to hold a firearm, because of the very points that my hon. Friend has just made. However, most of us who know someone reasonably well would be able to judge whether there were any good reason to disqualify that person from holding a firearm. If we felt that there were no good reason to disqualify that person from having a firearm, we would

sign the verification contained in the new clause. My hon. Friend is right about the difficulty, but I hope that he feels that we have the balance about right.

Mr. Corbett: Has the Minister thought about guidance which could be made available to those asked to sign verification statements? I have followed what he said, although, if he will forgive me, it is more of a lawyer's point than a layman's point. A statement saying. "I know nothing that would prevent Joe Bloggs from having a gun," in simple terms is tantamount to saying, "Let him have a gun." I understand the reservation that the Minister makes, but does he not consider that there is some virtue in having guidance available for those called upon to make verification statements?

Mr. Hogg: I am always reluctant to indulge in too much bureaucracy. The verification contained in the new clause is fairly clear. It is an assertion that the person knows of no reason why someone should not be permitted to possess a firearm. That matter is fairly clear to an ordinary person addressing it. I do not think that it would be necessary to furnish guidance. If we adhere to the groups of people referred to in rule 4, the hon. Member might feel that a person such as himself would be able to deal with the question without further guidance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

GRANT OF CO-TERMINOUS FIREARM AND SHOT GUN CERTIFICATES

'(1) Where a person who holds a firearm certificate applies for the grant or renewal of a shot gun certificate that certificate may, if he so requests, be granted or renewed for such period less than that specified in or prescribed under section 26(3) of the principal Act as will secure that it ceases to be in force at the same time as the firearm certificate.

(2) Where a person who holds a shot gun certificate, or both such a certificate and a firearm certificate, applies for the grant of a firearm certificate, or for the renewal of the firearm certificate held by him, he may, on surrendering his shot gun certificate, apply for a new shot gun certificate to take effect on the same day as that on which the firearm certificate is granted or renewed.

(3) Where a shot gun certificate is granted to a person or such a certificate held by him is renewed and on the same occasion he is granted a firearm certificate or such a certificate held by him is renewed the fee payable on the grant or renewal of the shot gun certificate shall be £5 instead of that specified in section 32 of the principal Act.

(4) Subsection (3) above shall be included in the provisions that may be amended under section 43 of the principal Act.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 1—Conditions attaching to the possession of self-loading rifles—
'No firearm certificate shall authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading or pump-action rifle to which section 5(2) (ab) of the principal Act applies unless that person—

(a) has held a firearms certificate for at least three years, and
(b) has been a full member of a rifle club for at least three years, and
(c) is a member of a club which is affiliated to the National Rifle Association or the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association and which has been approved by the Secretary of State as a club suitable for target shooting with self-loading rifles, and has satisfactorily completed a course of service rifle or practical rifle shooting approved by either of these Associations, or
(d) has a reason to possess such a gun because of disability or participation in vermin control or deer-culling.'.

New clause 6—Club membership a condition of new firearms certificate—
'Before a Chief Constable issues a firearms certificate to a person who has never previously held a rifle or pistol that person shall have been a member of a Home Office approved rifle or pistol club for at least six months and have obtained full membership of the club. "Home Office approved" shall mean a club organised along guidelines drawn up and issued by the Home Office.'.

New clause 7—Qualifications for holding certificate—
'No firearm certificate shall authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading or pump-action rifle to which section 5(2)(ab) of the principal Act applies unless that person—

(a) has held a firearms certificate for at least three years, and
(b) has been a full member of a rifle club for at least three years, and, as a member of a club which is affiliated to the National Rifle Association or the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association, which has been approved by the Secretary of State as a club suitable for target shooting with

self-loading rifles, has satisfactorily completed a course of service rifle or practical rifle shooting approved by either of these associations, or
(c) has a reason to possess such a gun because of disability, or,
(d) has a reason to possess such a gun for vermin control, deer culling, or other good reason.'.

New clause 8—Appeals in cases of refusal of registration—

'(1) An appeal under section 20, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, or 38 of the principal Act lies in England and Wales to the Firearms Appeal Tribunal and in Scotland to the Scottish Firearms Appeal Tribunal and an appeal from a decision of any such tribunal on a point of law shall lie in England and Wales to the Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice and in Scotland to the Court of Session.
(2) The Home Secretary shall by regulations provide for the establishment of a tribunal or tribunals to determine appeals by persons in England and Wales aggrieved by any decision of a Chief Officer of Police under the principal Act or under this Act.
(3) The Secretary of State for Scotland shall by regulations provide for establishment of a tribunal or tribunals to determine appeals by persons in Scotland aggrieved by any decision of a Chief Constable under the principal Act or this Act.
(4) Regulations made by the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland may include provision for summoning persons to attend and give evidence and produce documents and for authorising the administration of Oaths to witnesses.
(5) There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament any administrative expenses incurred by the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland for the purposes of the principal Act or this Act.
(6) Section 14 of the Firearms Act is repealed.'.

New clause 9—Certificates, applications and grants—
'After section 26(1) of the principal Act (Application for, and grant of certificates) there shall be inserted:—
(1A) When an application for the grant or variation of a firearm certificate in respect to firearms ammunition or conditions or grant of a shotgun certificate has been made in the prescribed form to the Chief Officer of Police for the area in which the applicant resides the Chief Officer of Police for the area in which the applicant resides shall proceed to either—
(a) grant the shotgun certificate or firearms certificate or variation to the firearms certificate application within twenty-eight days, and/or
(b) state in writing the reasons for refusal to grant the authority to possess each individual firearms/ ammunition or shotgun and ammunition, additionally stating the relevant sections of the Act in each case and notify the applicant of his right to appeal to Crown Court within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of such notification, and/or
(c) state in writing any difficulty or delay external to the Police service preventing the granting or formal refusal to processing of the application.".'.

New clause 10—Application of certificates (verification) —
'After section 26(2)(b) of the principal Act (rules requiring verification of matters contained in applications for certificates) there shall be inserted—
(c) require the application form for a certificate to contain the following questions, the answers to which shall be certified by the applicant's General Practitioner to the best of his knowledge and belief that the particulars as stated by the applicant to the above questions are accurate—
(i)(a) Do you suffer from epilepsy or from sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting? Please state 'Yes' or 'No'.
(b) If 'Yes' give details opposite,
(ii)(a) Do you suffer from, or have you at any time suffered from mental illness? Please state 'Yes' or 'No'
(b) If 'Yes' give details opposite.


(iii)(a) Do you suffer from any other disease or disability which might make possession by you of a firearm dangerous to the public? Please state 'Yes' or 'No'.
(b) If 'Yes' give details opposite.".'

New clause 11—Renewal of and temporary certificates—
'After section 26(1) of the principal Act (Application for, and grant of Certificates) there shall be inserted:—
(1 B) When an application for the renewal of a firearm or shotgun certificate has been made in the prescribed form to the Chief Officer of Police for the area in which the applicant resides no less than twenty-eight days prior to the date of expiry of the existing certificate and subject to the certificate holder not having been served with a notice of revocation then the Chief Officer of Police shall either:—

(a) grant a renewal of the firearm or shotgun certificate subject to subsection X below in either the terms of the expiring certificate, and/or
(b) issue a temporary certificate in the same terms and conditions as the expiring certificate, subject to subsection X below, and/or
(c) state in writing the reasons for refusal to grant the authority to possess each individual firearm/ ammunition or shotguns and ammunition additionally stating the relevant section(s) of the Act in each case and notify the applicant of his right to appeal to Crown Court within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of such notification, subject to subsection X below, and/or
(d) state in writing any difficulty for delay external to the Police Service preventing the granting or the formal refusal to the processing of the application, subject to subsection X below, to the issue of a certificate.

(X) To be received by the certificate holder 48 hours prior to the expiry of the existing certificate".'.

New clause 16—Standard form of firearms certificates—
'The Home Secretary shall authorise the use of a standard application form by all police authorities in respect of the grant or renewal of firearms certificates after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation and representatives of shooting interests within 12 months of the coming into force of this Act'.

Amendment No. 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert
'unless the person holds a firearm certificate issued on the conditions required by section (conditions attaching to the possession of self-loading rifles) of this Act.'.

Amendment No. 134, in clause 3, page 2, line 42, at end insert—
'and shall take such steps to ascertain the mental and physical history and present state of the applicant as he considers necessary.'.

Amendment No. 10, in line 48, at end insert—
'(1AA) No such certificate shall be refused on grounds relating to the safekeeping of the shotgun unless the chief officer of police has reason to believe that the lack of security for the shotgun is a danger to the public safety or the peace.'.

Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 11, after 'guns', insert—
'and any additional shotguns acquired after the grant or renewal of the certificate shall he added to the certificate by the holder of the certificate and such amendment shall be notified to the chief officer of police.'.

Amendment No. 114, in clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.

Amendment No. 115, in line 27, after 'photograph' insert—
'certified by the Chief Constable to be a true likeness'.

Amendment No. 13, in clause 10, page 5, line 27, leave out
'with only such types of rifles or pistols as are specified in the

approval'

and insert—
'and competition with small-bore rifles and pistols and full-bore rifles and pistols or any combination of them.'.

Amendment No. 14, in line 31, at end insert—
'(3A) A person aggrieved by the refusal of the Secretary of State to approve a club, or renewal of the approval of a club, or by the imposition of conditions may in accordance with section 44 of the principal Act appeal against the decision.'

Amendment No. 80 in clause 17, page 9, line 30, at end insert—
'(3A) After section 27(2) of that Act there shall be inserted—
(2A) Where a condition is specified on the certificate to the territory over which the firearm may be used, such conditions must be such as is specified in the firearms rules.".'

Amendment No. 146, in line 30, at end insert—
'(2d) section 33(4) of that Act (registration of firearms dealers) shall be amended by inserting after the word "registration" the words "which shall bear an up to date photograph of the person registered, countersigned by a person of standing and known to the dealer.".'

Amendment No. 147, in line 37, at end insert—
'(2e) In section 53(a) of that Act there shall be added after the word "or the words "application documents and".'

Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the most helpful course would' be for me to introduce new clause 12, inform the House that I cannot commend the other new clauses and the amendments in the group, and respond later to what has been said in the debate.
New clause 12 is designed to make coterminous grants of firearms and shotgun certificates. That is what most members of the Committee wanted, and I am glad to say that we have been able to achieve it.

Mr. Corbett: The Minister said that he would be brief, and my word, he was.
There seems to he sense in the new clause. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to make it clear that the Government have also accepted that, when someone holds——

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These are serious matters. Considerable resentment has alredy been expressed about our not being given an opportunity to discuss them properly in Committee. Can I ask you to rule on the hilarity that is being exhibited on the Conservative Front Bench below the Gangway? it proper in such a debate?

Mr. Speaker: I was listening so closely to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that I did not notice any hilarity. I do not think that this is a particularly funny subject, and I hope that we can get on with it.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful for, and flattered by, your remarks, Mr. Speaker.
Would the Minister be kind enough to make it clear that, when someone holds both a firearms certificate and a shotgun certificate, that can be shown on a single sheet of paper? The one does not automatically follow from the other. In view of our shared interest in cutting bureaucracy, the Minister many see some sense in that suggestion.
New clauses 1 and 7 are designed to license the shooter rather than the weapon. Someone in Anglesey wrote to me


today—the argument is not new, but it was put in a slightly different context—asking what the difference was between a fast motor vehicle and a slow one. The answer is the driver. He said that in the event of an accident, it is, of course, the driver and not the car who is before the courts, and if that is good enough for something as lethal as a car in the wrong hands, it should apply to weapons.
That argument has some merit in some respects. I understand the wish of people who use self-loading rifles to be able to continue to do so. I want to be open with the House and others on this issue. I said in Committee, and now repeat, that the case for using SLRs to kill animals for what are known as sporting purposes is slight. The case for using them in competition target shooting is stronger, but that has to be balanced against the potential—indeed, the inbuilt—lethality of SLRs from a public safety point of view.
The ban on SLRs is justified, although I and some of my hon. Friends were prepared to support the idea of keeping legal those SLRs with integral magazines capable of storing between three and five shots. I know that that meets the argument of many hon. Members. However, there is anger among competition shooters because the House cannot guarantee that the banning of SLRs will prevent another Hungerford tragedy. We should acknowledge that and perhaps it is the strongest case for banning SLRs. Such a ban would make even the illegal possession of these weapons more difficult given that they would be added to a list of weapons that people would not be allowed to hold. That is a public safety argument that we cannot dismiss.
Mr. L. R. Tucker wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) to explain how he and his brother had invented a device that locked the trigger mechanism so that it was impossible to fire weapons without unlocking it with a key and removing the device. He was kind enough to enclose a photograph of one such mechanism attached to a shotgun. To unlock the mechanism takes about five seconds. Mr. Tucker states that keys for such devices could be held at gun clubs when weapons were taken home. Such a mechanism would also cover anxieties about the safety of weapons in transit from home to an event, sometimes via a public house or restaurant.
Such a mechanism is another alternative to an outright ban on the use of SLRs and it could go a long way to meet the Government's objective to try to ensure better public safety. Hon. Members who sat on the Committee will already be aware that I find this a difficult area because I do not want the Government to act as a nanny. We want an enabling state and at the end of the day a judgment must be made. That judgment is simple and stark, although, as I am demonstrating, it is not an easy one to reach.
Will the public safety be helped to some degree by making it illegal to hold SLRs? I have reached the conclusion—I am not pretending that it is shared by all my right hon. and hon. Friends—that the answer must be yes.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great care and I agree with much of it. He has reached the conclusion that the

banning of such rifles, even if they are limited to five rounds, will enhance public safety. Is there any evidence to back that conclusion?

Mr. Corbett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me discourteous when I say that we spent a great deal of time in Committee discussing this matter—he would expect nothing less. At the end of the day it is a matter of judgment. Some facts are available—the House will be familiar with them, so I shall not weary it with them —that would strongly support the argument that I suspect the hon. Gentleman backs.
It is a balance of judgment as to whether such a ban helps or hinders public safety. I have reached the conclusion—I am aware that it will not be universally shared—that it stands a chance of helping public safety.
Amendment No. 134 concerns the grant and renewal of shotgun certificates. It would empower the chief officer of police to inquire into the
mental and physical history and present state of the applicant as he considers necessary.
In Committee there was a substantial debate about making such an inquiry a condition of consideration for every application, but that was not a successful proposal. Where a chief officer of police or someone acting on his behalf was uncertain and had perhaps no more than a fingertip feeling about this—police officers are not medically qualified and do not pretend that they are—they should have powers under the Bill to seek the opinion of the applicant's general practitioner in cases where licences were about to be issued or renewed. It is an extremely important point.
We have to face the fact that about one in five of us is likely to suffer some form of mental illness during our lifetime. Happily for most of us it is temporary and we get over it. However, it does happen. I am thinking about what the loss of a job that someone enjoyed could do to a character. Certainly, the sudden and tragic loss of an infant, the break-up of a marriage or a relationship, and everyday events such as that—unhappily that is how they should be described—can and do put people temporarily off mental balance.
It may be said that a person in that condition should know well enough that he or she should not make applications in the first place. However, it could be part of that condition that they do not recognise that they are in that state and are reluctant to take advice about it. That is an area of risk.
All that the amendment seeks to do is to enable the police, through a quick telephone call to a GP, to clear up the matter. I appreciate the point about medical confidentiality but the applicant could be asked to agree to the telephone call being made beforehand. The police officer concerned would draw conclusions, and would perhaps be entitled to do so, when an applicant said, "No, I do not want that done."
Amendment No. 146 deals with a simple and obvious point. If it is proper to require certificate holders to have an up-to-date photograph on their certificate—there is little disagreement on that—I would have thought that it is at least as important for registered firearms dealers to have to do the same. Perhaps it is more important for the firearms dealers because the scope for abuse or misuse of a dealer's licence is greater than for the holder of a single weapon. I hope that the Minister will see the sense of that.
The House will know that under section 53(a) of the Firearms Act 1968 the Home Secretary is given powers by statutory instrument to prescribe the form of the certificates. Amendment No. 147 seeks to give him the power to do the same with application forms for those certificates. It seems an obvious point and makes one wonder why it was not done in the first place. The intended merit of that is that every police force in England and Wales would be collecting the same sort of information in response to answers to exactly the same set of questions from every applicant whether he or she lived in the far reaches of Cornwall and Devon or just below Hadrian's Wall.
10.45 pm
As we were told in Committee, some shooters complained about the attitude of some chief constables to certificate applications. It is well known that some of them are less enthusiastic about firearms than their brothers. It is strange that they all happen to be men; to the best of my knowledge, there is not yet a single woman chief constable, although no doubt we shall get around to that. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have provided a marvellous precedent which I hope will soon be followed by the police forces. Shooters, as I was about to say, do not want the issue of a licence to depend either on the temperament of a chief constable or on where an applicant happens to live. Now, on occasion, it does. It is wrong that there should be so much personal interference in the way the Firearms Act is applied. Just because chief constables in different areas have different attitudes to firearms should not mean that shooters with equally legitimate reasons for holding weapons should be treated differently when applying for certificates.
As for new clause 16, I have teased the Minister about this issue before. I have a draft of the standard application form which I am perfectly prepared to let the Minister see. It is called:
An inquiry form for the grant. renewal or variation of a firearms certificate.
It lists all sorts of personal details, followed by 20 questions—almost like "20 Things You Did Not Know About Getting A Firearms Certificate" in The Sun. Frivolity aside, the form goes through the things about which it is proper for the police to ask questions and get answers. It is designed to assist the police to determine the suitability of an applicant to hold a certificate.
This proposal would not put any great burden on the police. It is one of the things that the consultative committee—and the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation—should be consulted about. The more people who see such a draft, the better. I imagine that agreement about this could easily be reached. Why should police forces bear the extra burden—as they now do—of devising, preparing and printing their own application forms? Across the country, that must waste a tremendous amount of police time and money.
The Minister may say that such provision for a common application form is not needed. If the Secretary of State gets powers under the 1968 Act to specify the licence or certificate that shall be issued, I cannot see why the application forms should not he similarly covered. If, however, the Minister disagrees, will he give an undertaking that the Home Secretary will strongly recommend such a course of action in guidance given to chief constables to try to meet the concerns of large

numbers of shooters about the differences in treatment that they receive from chief constables and those who work under their authority i n the police forces in England and Wales?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) made an important point about uniformity of information for a shotgun or firearms certificate. As my hon. Friend the Minister will remember, he gave this undertaking in Committee:
There is no intention to use the shotgun certificate process to limit the number of guns that an individual can possess. The only intention … is for the number of shotguns possessed to be described and identified."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 18 February 1988; c. 138.]
I am not sure that my hon. Friend has followed that up by giving us legislation that can be interpreted in the way that he did in Committee.
I welcome new clause 12 and thank my hon. Friend for it. It is about conterminous certificates. My only question is about cost. I know that my hon. Friend is reducing the shotgun cost to £5, but throughout the Committee stage he dodged the issue of the eventual cost—perhaps next year—not only of a shotgun certificate, but of a firearms certificate. As a result of the legislation that may be introduced after the Bill, enormous additional costs may be imposed on the police, so that inevitably the cost of the shotgun and firearms certificate will increase substantially. I mentioned £50 for a firearms certificate, and my hon. Friend has not denied that yet.
I am glad that the Home Secretary has returned to the Chamber, because this group of new clauses and amendments is at the heart of two of our main criticisms of the Home Office's handling of the Bill. The second is the issue of the statutory committee. One arm of the Government gave us an absolute assurance last week that it would remain as it was in the Bill, and the following morning, last Friday, we found a series of amendments that made substantial alterations. That is not the way in which hon. Members should operate, and I found it extraordinary that that should happen.
The other great issue is the self-loading rifle. I hope that we shall be able to vote on new clause 1 if we do not receive a satisfactory reply from my hon. Friend. This is another opportunity to try to persuade the Government that the use of self-loading rifles is not as heinous as they make out. It is the man behind any rifle, not the form of action, that matters. As we demonstrated time and again in Committee, a competent operator with a bolt action rifle can get off just as many rounds as a person with a limited integral magazine with a self-loading action. Yet the Minister seems reluctant to listen or understand. I shall come to some of his quotations in the not too distant future.
One of our principal objectives in new clause I is to give us another opportunity to persuade the Government, and my hon. Friend will see that we include four important safeguards so that a self-loading weapon can be used. The first is that the owner
has held a firearms certificate for at least three years
and has a good track record. Secondly, he must have been
a full member of a rifle club for at least three years",
observed and controlled by people who understand firearms. Thirdly, he must be
a member of a club which AS affiliated to the National Rifle Association or the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association,


two national bodies that control practical shooting. He must have completed proper training. The Home Secretary would have the power to approve special clubs using self-loading rifles, and so on. That is a powerful control.
I shall refer to the fourth safeguard in depth because it covers those who are disabled and need self-loading rifles if they are to participate in the important recreational sport of shooting. Why is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary determined that disabled people should not have self-loading rifles for their enjoyment of the sport? Why will he not let women use self-loading rifles to participate? I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is here. Why will Scotland, England and Wales not allow those people to use self-loading rifles?
We are not talking about self-loading rifles with a vast magazine capacity. We are talking about self-loading rifles with four or five-round internal magazines. What does the Home Secretary have against such weapons compared with a bolt-action rifle holding 10 rounds and having greater firepower than a five-round self-loading rifle? I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend does not even appear to be listening to me. I wish that he would take on board the fact that we are serious about disabled people, women and others who cannot fire a bolt-action rifle. Some people have disfigured hands and cannot use a right-handed bolt-action rifle and cannot afford to have it converted to left-handed action.
There are many difficulties related to self-loading weapons, but the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State do not seem to be prepared to listen to them. It is a disgrace that, even though this country goes out of its way to help the disabled in athletics and almost every sport, the Home Office is not prepared to help and support the recreational shooter. I am amazed that the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State are not prepared to respond to the needs of these people.
Our other reason for being cross about this issue of the self-loading rifle is that in Committee my hon. Friend said that he would look favourably upon the five-round, internal magazine self-loading rifle. It is astonishing that at the end of the day he has reversed everything that he said in Committee, although he never gave a firm commitment. I shall give a few quotations from my hon. Friend. He said:
As a self-loading rifle can fire three, four or five rounds over an extended period, it is difficult to argue that that gun is more lethal than a traditional 10-shot bolt action.
Later he said:
I am trying to approach the matter constructively in an attempt to meet the point about disability. Incidentally, it would also meet the culling point.
We were talking about culling hinds. He went on:
It does not constitute a major departure from the main thrust of the clause".
My hon. Friend later said:
I am very much closer in this matter to the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury than those of my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North-West and for Dumfries. I am happy to reconsider the issue, but I have in mind a limited capacity. What we are likely to consider appropriate will probably be nearer to four, as for the Remington Woodmaster, than to eight shots.
Therefore, my undertaking is that I shall look at this issue seriously to see whether it would be right to leave in section

1 integral-magazine self-loading guns of very limited capacity, preferably three … That would meet … the pest control point".

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of our reasons for feeling so strongly about this issue is that a quasi commitment was given and as a result we did not vote against clause 1 stand part? That is why we feel badly let down. A quasi commitment was given to buy off our vote.

Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even the Minister would accept that he knew he was facing defeat. It was only because of my summing up at the end of the debate that he escaped. He has let us down very badly. In winding up that debate I said:
I am about to seek to withdraw the amendment, bearing in mind that, had I pressed the amendment on disability, I could probably have won it in the Committee. I hope that I shall not feel that I am let down on Report, when one has little hope of winning against the full Government Whipping operation. I should be very disappointed if the Minister did not table an amendment on Report covering the points that we have made this morning."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 8 March 1988; c. 326–32.]
My hon. Friend never came back to say that that was wrong. He left every impression that that was the right summing up. My hon. Friend has let down not only the whole of the shooting public, but all the disabled men and women over the issue of the small four or five-shot internal magazine self-loading rifle. I should have preferred him to go as far as an eight-shot internal magazine, because that would have covered the Garand rifle, which is commonly used by the target shooting fraternity. This country is particularly good at target shooting, and has the highest reputation for it, but one of the weapons used is to be taken away, purely at the behest of the Front Bench and the Home Office. It is a disgrace, and I hope that it is not too late for my hon. Friend to reconsider the astonishing decision that he and Scottish and Welsh Ministers have made.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that during the passage of the Bill we have all undergone a certain amount of education about what shooting today is all about? We are no longer living in the days when he and I went down to the ranges and used a bolt action rifle because that was the only sort of rifle that was available. We have moved on, through the self-loading rifle, and many of the competitions that take place, nationally and internationally, do so with self-loading rifles. The point about competition is important for the United Kingdom and should not be under-estimated by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

11 pm

Sir Hector Monro: Who would have thought in 1917 that many cars would have automatic gears by now, instead of a gear lever? We have moved on, and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not seem to have done so in this respect.
From the start we have agreed that certain military weapons with large magazines are not acceptable. We are talking about rifles that hold a maximum of eight rounds, and usually four or five, as we discussed in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he would do as we wished if there were a sufficient number of rifles, but some of them are made internationally. There is a huge supply of these rifles. I reeled off about six different types in


Committee, and can go through that list again. if the Government are prepared to look at the matter again and give a commitment that they will introduce an amendment in the other place on self-loading rifles with internal magazines and deal properly with the consultative committee, there would be a different attitude to the Bill, not only in the House, but in the other place.
I shall not go into the details of the amendments grouped with the new clause, because my hon. Friends will speak on them. Many of these are extremely important. I am not saying that my new clause is 100 per cent. right, and I would be happy if my hon. Friend would concede the point about the five-shot, or eight-shot or the pre-1939 self-loading rifle. He has a whole host of opportunities to get out of the corner into which he has painted himself. I hope that if I move the new clause later, for voting purposes, we will get the concession hoped for by all those in the shooting world involved in target and sporting shooting for recreation—there is a huge involvement in it —who feel cross about the Government treating them in the way that they have. We shall have a fresh attitude to the Bill if tonight we get a positive answer from my hon. Friend.

Mr. William Ross: Like the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), I have been rather disappointed by the Government's reaction this evening, because I remember clearly the incident in Committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred, when we refrained from voting. Had we done so, the Government would have been defeated and as a result would have been in a difficult position. The Minister's hon. Friends let him off the hook, in the expectation that he would meet their case, which they had put to him graciously, but unanswerably. The Minister appeared, as so often, to accept what they said, and in good faith they let him off the hook. I am sorry that they have lived to regret that. At the time, some of us wondered whether that was wise, but we were guided by their judgment rather than our own cynical assessment of Government attitudes.
You will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is a large group of amendments. You will also appreciate that many of them are mine, which means that I shall have to talk on this subject for a long time. They are all sensible and soundly based and they are all worthy of acceptance by a Government who are trying to do something sensible and constructive about firearms law. As the Minister has said, that probably means that none of them will be accepted, but I hope to persuade even him, with his closed mind, that my proposals are worthy of acceptance.
I have considered each of the amendments carefully before tabling them to try to find the appropriate language. Sadly, there is a typing error in the group of amendments which alters the meaning of one of the new clauses. Like the typing error that originated in the Minister's office regarding the verification of the Home Office approval of the Dunmore shooting centre, it has unforeseen consequences, but not, I hope, as serious as those arising from that error.
I should like to refer first to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I understand what he is driving at and it is clear from the various amendments that have been tabled that we are all aiming at roughly the same thing. The hon. Gentleman's amendment excludes farmers and persons who use firearms in their work and other bona fide firearms clubs.
A number of points raised in Committee have a bearing on these issues. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) asked what changes there had been since 1968 and what record of crime or irregularities the Home Office had discovered. The Under-Secretary of State replied:
An unapproved rifle club would be no more than the banding together of people who possess section 1 certificates for the shooting of their guns in a quarry … They are a gathering together of people who have section 1 certificates and want, for example, to shoot in a quarry that one of their number owns."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 25 February 1988; c. 213.]
In other words, certain difficulties are involved in defining a club. From what I have been told, that is a real problem in Great Britain. The problem may lie not entirely with the clubs, but with the Home Office and the form sent out to clubs. That form is then filled in by the club and sent back to the police, who send it back to the Home Office. The Home Office is then supposed to tell the National Rifle Association or the National Small-bore Rifle Association. That appears to work, albeit sometimes slowly and irregularly, in regard to the first application for the formation of a club.
However, if a club then seeks an extension of the firearms that it may use, there appears to be a difficulty in that no one appears to think it necessary to send the forms on to the relevant associations. Because of that, we must go further than the hon. Member for Newbury goes in his new clause. I tabled new clause 7 because of my knowledge of this subject and the knowledge of those people who advised me.
New clause 7 demands that a person should have held a firearms certificate for at least three years, should have been a full member of a rifle club for that period and should have undertaken a training procedure as a member of that club, or should have a reason to possess such a firearm because of disability. There are those who do not belong to a rifle club but who need to use one in the course of their work. Deer stalker, gamekeepers and others fall into that category, including farmers. We must try to cater for that large and important group.
A difficulty arises with new clause 8, which appears in my name, because the final line includes a reference to section 14 of the Firearms Act 1968 when it should have been section 44. Section 14 deals with the possession, purchase or acquisition of a shotgun by those temporarily in Great Britain, a matter to which we shall come in due course. Section 44 deals with appeals, and it is only when the typing error is taken note of that the new clause makes sense. I tumbled to the error only the other day. I tried to have it corrected, and it is unfortunate that it was not. If the mistake had been put right, I do not think that the new clause would have appeared in the group that is now before the House.
It is vital that we meet the concern of those who find that their application for a firearms certificate has been refused. I am sure that all those who take an interest in firearms will be aware that if someone's application is refused there is no cheap or easy way in which he can appeal against the decision. Such an appeal normally ends up with a hearing before the High Court, and that is an extremely costly business. It could cost many hundreds of pounds to take that course, but quite frequently those who appeal win the day.
I hope that the Government will meet the real need for a cheap, simple and straightforward appeal system that


will sort out some of the worst cases of refusal and at the same time, if the appeal tribunal fails, allow the issue to proceed to the High Court if that is considered worth while. I ask the Government seriously to consider this issue.
The object is to set up a tribunal system to hear appeals against the refusals of chief officers of police to grant or vary firearms certificates or shotgun certificates, but not to deal with criminal offences. The tribunal should be on the lines of an industrial tribunal, the procedures of which would provide a useful model. It should have a legally qualified chairman of suitable standing. It should represent police interests and shooting interests, and perhaps other interests. The tribunal should sit in England and Wales in buildings of the sort that are used by industrial tribunals, and there would be localities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Some sort of legal representation would be allowed. No award of costs would be allowed except in exceptional circumstances. There would need to be a secretariat.
There would need also to be a flat fee. The costs of taking an appeal to such a simple tribunal should not be allowed to move into the realm of costs that are incurred in taking cases to other legal forums. There could be an appeal on a point of law to the divisional court or whatever happens to be the relevant court in the appropriate jurisdiction. The tribunal could have all the functions that are exercised by the Crown court in its administrative capacity.
The advantages are numerous. The cost of administration would be much less to the police and the shooting public. I assume that, normally, whenever the police lose an appeal, the public purse must bear the cost. The speed of decisions would be far greater than under the present system in Crown courts, where appeals are regulated and are properly considered less important than criminal matters. Taking away this small portion of work would greatly ease the burden on the Crown court system. The new system would build up its own expertise.
11.15pm
At present, the Crown court cannot compel the attendance of witnesses, documents and so on. Anyone who wishes to compel attendance must issue writs through the High Court, which is a time-consuming and costly business. [Interruption.] By far the most important advantage of a tribunal over the Crown court would be the lessening of the enormous cost of dealing with firearms applications. It has been a tactical advantage in some cases to refuse certificates, knowing that the costs would be £2,000 or £3,000. That is unacceptable.
An important possibility has been opened up by the new clause. I hope that the Government intend to go down that route, as it is badly needed. [Interruption.] No doubt—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber. The hon. Member has serious points to make and I hope that he will be heard properly.

Mr. Ross: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. No doubt hon. Members at the rear of the Chamber are

catching up because of their lack of knowledge of firearms law. I am pleased to see them all here, but, is a pity that they have not attempted to read the Bill's proceedings.
New clause 9 deals with the application for the granting or variation of certificates. It imposes a time limit within which the whole application procedure must be carried out. Twenty-eight days is a reasonable time for the police to carry out their work. The new clause demands that the police must tell the individual when the application has been refused and notify him that he has a right of appeal within 21 days of the date of receipt of the notification and
state in writing any difficulty or delay external to the Police service".
There should not be any difficulty within the police service, but something may happen over which it has no control —for example, in the Home Office—so I should like to give the police a let-out.
New clause 10 sets out three questions which are intended to discover the applicant's condition. The Minister may not have seen these questions before. If so, he should pick up the RUC application form. These questions are a direct lift from that form. The questions ask:
Do you suffer from epilepsy or from sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting? … Do you suffer from, or have you at any time suffered from mental illness? … Do you suffer from any other disease or disability which might make possession by you of a firearm dangerous to the public?
The applicant must answer yes or no and give details.
One might think that an individual who suffered from those conditions and who was anxious to get a certificate would not answer the questions. The RUC tells me that frequently people answer them truthfully and a proper investigation can be carried out.
The RUC application form does not ask, as paragraph (c) does, for the applicant's general practitioner to certify
to the best of his knowledge and belief that the particulars as stated by the applicant … are accurate".
I have listened to what has been said about the position of the medical world in certifying the stability and sanity, or otherwise, of an applicant for a firearms certificate. No one, not even the doctor who apparently signs and acts for the applicant, can give a hard and fast, black and white ruling that an individual is stable. That is not a matter for a general practitioner.

Mr. Corbett: I want to return to the question of mental illness in the context of what the hon. Gentleman said about the RUC experience being that most people—or perhaps he said many people—answered the questions truthfully. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of an applicant who answered that he had suffered at some time from mental illness, say 10 years ago, yet has clearly recovered from that illness, who has been refused a certificate merely on the grounds that he has demonstrated that he has recovered from that illness?

Mr. Ross: I am not aware of that, and I cannot answer that question. However, I understand that in such cases the police make the most careful, detailed and discreet inquiries of the medical staff who treated that person for the mental illness, of the general practitioner and of those people who know the individual intimately. I would think that in general such people with that background of mental illness would not receive a firearms certificate, but I believe that there are cases in which people have recovered from instability and would be granted a


certificate. However, this is a delicate matter that is best left to common sense, which is sometimes sadly lacking in these affairs.
This is a difficult matter, and no one would try to deny the difficulty of the general theme. However, the line followed by the RUC is a worthy example that should be followed. I have introduced the matter for the House to consider.
I have a number of examples of application forms for firearms certificates. I have a copy of the form that I sent to the Minister today at his request. He said that he was not aware of its existence, and I have tabled a written question about it. I apologise for neglecting to send him a copy of that form until today. It is a model produced by the Home Office in 1969. It is headed:
Report upon the application of … 
It continues:
Is applicant of good character and fit to be trusted with firearms? If not, give reasons—eg. mentally unstable, previous convictions, intemperate habits, notoriously careless, etc.
Even then, previous consideration was given to this whole theme. The application form included space for reasons why the applicant wanted the firearm.
It is interesting to note that all the police forces in Britain use pretty much the same form, but with a different number. One never knows which firearms application form one is dealing with because each constabulary has its own. The South Wales constabulary has progressed. Its form asks:
Is the applicant of temperate habits and sound mind?
It approaches the whole question from a slightly different direction. It also asks:
Is the applicant subject to fits of violent temper or careless in the use of firearms?
Can applicant be permitted to have a certificate without danger to public safety or to the peace?
The police have made progress. However, they do not seem to have developed cohesively or satisfactorily for all concerned. It appears to be bitsy—a little bit here, a little bit there. That is not satisfactory. We should have a more comprehensive approach. The RUC has taken a different approach. That is wrong. We should try to nail this down and deal with it comprehensively across the country. One approach should be known to the police, the public and the shooting world and understood by all concerned. It is far more likely that such an approach would be considered satisfactory by all concerned. If we can achieve that tonight, this debate will have been worth while. I am afraid that we may not get that far.
New clause 9 is important and the Government should be prepared carefully to consider it. They should try to learn some lessons from it and aim at producing something in a form that people will accept.
New clause 11, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and myself, is aimed at making the police get their act together and handle renewals as quickly as possible. It provides:
(1B) When an application for the renewal of a firearm certificate or shotgun certificate has been made in the prescribed form to the Chief Officer of Police for the area in which the applicant resides no less than twenty-eight days prior to the date of expiry of the existing certificate and subject to the certificate holder not having been served with a notice of revocation"—
I hope that the police would at least send out a reminder —
then the Chief Officer of Police shall either:—

(a) grant a renewal of the firearm or shotgun certificate subject to subsection X below in either the terms of the expiring certificate"—
in other words, when there is no change. I believe that on some occasions police have renewed a certificate but have calmly removed some weapons, and then the holder found himself possessing firearms for which he did not have a certificate.
The chief officer may also
(b) issue a temporary certificate in the same terms and conditions as the expiring certificate, subject, to subsection X below, and/or
(c) state in writing the reasons for refusal to grant the authority to possess each individual firearm/ ammunition or shotguns and ammunition additionally stating the relevant section(s) of the Act in each case and notify the applicant of his right to appeal to Crown Court within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of such notification, subject to subsection X below, and/or
(d) state in writing any difficulty for delay external to the Police service preventing the granting or the formal refusal to the processing of the application, subject to subsection X below, to the issue of a certificate.
In other words, I am trying to make the police state the specific reasons for their refusal so that applicants will have some understanding of the true situation rather than find themselves facing a totally blank wall. People refused a firearm certificate have a right to know what the reasons are for that refusal. If the police receive an application 28 days prior to the date of its expiry, there is no reason why they should not give those reasons in writing.
Subsection (X) of new clause 11 is simply a requirement that the police will see to it that the individual owning a firearm is provided with a new certificate 48 hours prior to the expiry of his existing certificate. If an applicant's certificate expires on 31 March, come 1 April he may otherwise be in possession of firearms for which he has no authorisation. That is not a matter to be taken lightly, because the penalty is a fine of up to £2,000, or six months' imprisonment, or possibly both.
Does the Minister really believe that any free citizen in this nation of ours should be left in that situation? I do not think so. If the police delay matters, or have them delayed, they have a duty to the public, and to the shooting public, to ensure that applicants are covered for the period in question. Holders of certificates should be told some time before if their certificates are not going to be renewed. Otherwise, renewal should follow.
I understand that in some parts of the country renewals simply omit weapons. North Wales has been quoted as one example, but perhaps hon. Members with knowledge of that part of the world can give the House more details. As a result, people are left without the right to hold the weapons in their possession. I understand that the Chief Constable concerned is a member of the Minister's working party on firearms, which seems rather a queer choice.
In passing over the amendments and new clauses put down by other right hon. and hon. Members, I am not actively saying that they are bad; it is just that I have quite enough of my own to be getting on with. I hope and pray that they will deal with theirs in a manner that will convince me, as I am trying to convince them of the validity of what I am saying.
11.30 pm
Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 deal with the photographic provisions. As I have pointed out before, under Northern Ireland legislation it is necessary to have two photographs, which must be certified by the police officer. Amendment No. 115 proposes the words
certified by the Chief Constable to be a true likeness".
I do not expect Sir John Hermon to come down and look at me, then say, "That's you in the photograph, Willie," and sign it on the back. I do, however, expect him to delegate his authority, as do chief constables and chief officers of various types throughout the country when dealing with all sorts of matters.
For all I care, that authority can be delegated all the way down to the constable who came out of the depot only yesterday. But I want the policeman actually to see the individual, and then to declare on the back of the photograph that he is the individual named in the firearms certificate, so that the police have a record for the lifetime of the certificate.
Amendment No. 114 refers to the need for three photographs rather than two, which I hope the Minister will take on board. As I have said, in Northern Ireland at present one photograph is on the firearms certificate, stamped and verified. One is held in police headquarters in the firearms section. The section is far too big and overstaffed, because, as we all know, the work is probably done by the local sergeant or constable on the ground, who knows the folk anyway. I have a quibble with the Northern Ireland Office about that, but, sadly, it is outside the realms of this Minister's responsibilities. The third photograph should, I believe, be left on the file in the local police stations, because, although the police are assiduous in trying to identify individuals, they cannot always do so.
I believe that in Northern Ireland, where there is terrorism, and equally in Great Britain, which has a large population whom the police cannot be expected to know individually, it should be possible for the police to identify the individual who stands in front of them saying, "I am Joe Bloggs, and here is my firearms certificate." I want the police to have a photograph that cannot be interfered with, and which therefore will be different from the one that appears on a certificate that is stolen. The amendments are purely and simply for the protection of the public, and I strongly believe that they should be taken seriously and accepted.
At the beginning of the debate, the Minister said that only one of the amendments could be accepted: in other words, that everything was perfect. I am trying to show that everything is not perfect—that many of the suggestions being made tonight are sensible and should be acted on. The identification of people is vital to the control of firearms. Some hon. Members say that this is an invasion of privacy, but privacy will be invaded if only one photograph is taken.
Let me now deal with amendment No. 80, which is found on page 2099 of the Amendment Paper. We do not have quite 2,000 pages of amendments, although the Bill really needs that number. There is a difficulty, which did not previously exist, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland over where firearms may be used. The imposition of territorial conditions in Northern Ireland has not made a blind bit of difference. They have not improved matters; they have made them a little worse for those who use

firearms. From what I have been told, I understand that the conditions are to be found in the 1969 memorandum of guidance, but I believe that they ought to be incorporated in the firearms rules.
I understand that there is a great deal of disquiet among the shooting public and also a great deal of disagreement with the police in Great Britain generally over the use of firearms. Most of those who have high-powered rifles know how dangerous they can be, and they are very careful in their use, but there is always somebody who is not. I have been given a large amount of correspondence on the use of firearms. [Interruption.] I am troubled by the fact that the correspondence shows that few policemen appear to have real knowledge of the behaviour of bullets when they strike and ricochet.
I have a report, written by a major who is clearly a man who knows about firearms. [Interruption.] He says that, on behalf of the occupier of a farm, he met a sergeant of the Gwent constabulary.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. These are serious matters. The points that are being made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) are pertinent and must be decided this evening, but Conservative Members who are sitting below the Gangway are talking yet again about matters that appear to have nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion. I ask you either to ask those Members to hold their discussions outside the Chamber or to pay attention to what is being said by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Far too many group meetings are taking place in the Chamber. I have already appealed for quiet so that we can hear the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), who has tabled a number of serious amendments to which he wishes to speak.

Mr. Ross: I regret that so many hon. Members from both the major and the minority parties have been so overburdened with Hungerford that they have been unable to stand back and take a long, cool look at what we are trying to do. I very much regret that it has fallen to an Ulster Unionist to make comments which I believe should be made. I should have preferred them to be made by hon. Members with constituencies in Great Britain, because their constitents rather than mine will suffer from the effects of the legislation. The application of the firearms law will make no real difference to the people of Northern Ireland.
The major said:
During the discussions, it became apparent to me that, in general,
the sergeant's
knowledge of firearms was not of a very high standard and most certainly his knowledge of their use in the field and of the type of weapon involved was minimal. When dealing with land inspections of this type, such knowledge must be vitally important.
To confirm my suspicions, I showed him a sample safety template and asked him if he had ever seen anything like it before. After a careful examination, he finally admitted that he did not know exactly what it was.
I assume that he did not know what it was at all.
This was said in the presence of the Inspector. A safety template is a printed pattern, which can be laid on a map to enable persons accurately to mark out areas liable to become danger zones because of ricochets etc. Training in the use of such items is a basic part of the syllabus of a weapons instructor and I was amazed and horrified that a Force


weapons instructor had no knowledge of it and even more so that he was employed in assessing land for safety without such knowledge.
That is a very serious situation.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members saw the article in the Western Mail on Friday 19 July 1987 which reported that golfers at Wales's top golf course were having their golfing destroyed by rabbits. The course manager asked for a ·22 rifle and was refused. He took the police to court and he won because the judge said, "Public safety is what the case is all about. In this case the risk is as slight and as minimal as it could ever be in well-regulated circles." That is another case where the police are in a mess.
There is a great deal more. People seem to have lost their common sense about firearms safety. I have a vast amount of information, but I do not want to weary the House with all of it. I have a letter from one gentleman who draws attention to the entire history of territorial control, right back to the Firearms Amendment Bill 1919. It shows how the system of territorial control has developed over the years. There is far too much for me to read out at 20 minutes to 12 in the evening, but I should like to quote one or two extracts.
Under the heading "The 1973 Green Paper", the letter states:
This paper was at the time of its publication unacceptable to the then government. This present Bill"—
the 1988 Bill—
is based on the 1973 Paper and there has been no change in the circumstances but even in paragraph 77 the Committee say on occasion a Firearm Certificate is issued subject to a condition limiting its use to a specified area of land. The practice since 1968 has been invariably to impose a condition restricting usage to specified land. In exercising his discretion the Chief Officer should bear in mind that the imposition of a territorial condition might be unduly restrictive in some cases.
It goes on to mention mortality statistics, of which there were not very many.
In Northern Ireland, we have to specify on what we can use a ·22 rifle. I assume that that is to stop people driving all over the country with the excuse that they need a ·22 rifle on a farm, but using it for some other purpose.
In my experience, that is unduly restrictive. It creates unnecessary difficulty for farmers and others who cannot restrict themselves to their own land all the time. Farms are generally small and people in my part of the world shoot vermin and rabbits over quite large areas of the countryside. That means trespassing on their neighbours' land. It is quite common, and no one was worried about it. Now, one has to seek permission. The difficulty is not that permission might be refused; it is the sheer trouble of getting it and the fact that the police can ask an individual whether he has the permission of 20 or 30 farmers to shoot on their land.
Another surprising matter has arisen in regard to the Gwent constabulary. The letter sent by the chief constable states:
The ·303 and 7·62 rifle and ammunition to which this certificate relates shall also be used for deer-stalking on land which is safe and over which the holder had permission to shoot.
It is my understanding that, whenever he talks about safety, the shooter in that case, and not the chief constable, has to decide whether the land is safe. That might very well be the position in Gwent but it does not seem to he the position elsewhere. The deputy chief constable of Gwent said that it was for the shooter to decide. It does not seem

that the chief constable's people looking at the land to decide whether it is safe need be there at all. It is left to the individual who is actually firing the shots.
The letter finishes by saying:
Your request to also use this rifle for shooting marauding dogs is somewhat unusual and perhaps this could be clarified.
Anyone in Northern Ireland who wanted to keep a ·22 rifle but who did not have a flock of sheep to protect from stray dogs would have a poor chance of getting a certificate. It seems that conditions in Wales are very different from those in Northern Ireland.
I have spoken at some length on this matter because it is important and has not been given the consideration that it deserves. The Bill is a mess. It was ill-conceived and is a knee-jerk reaction. If they were wise, the Government would have accepted the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and thought about the issue again. They could have come back next year with a Bill that would have gone through in a day and a half and there would have been no trouble. Sadly, they have chosen the route of confrontation, and very unwise confrontation at that. This provision will do no good. It will not prevent another Hungerford if there is another madman out there with a weapon of some sort, and it will not do anything to improve relations between the shooting public and the police.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome new clause 12 and congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on fulfilling yet another of the promises that he made in Committee. He has granted conterminosity between the shotgun licence and the firearms certificate. He knows that I would have preferred him to go a stage further, and have only one document divided into two sections. I believe that that would have provided certain administrative achantages for the police. I am nevertheless grateful for what he has done, and I am sure that it will be a useful step forward.
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker., for selecting new clause 6, which relates to how somebody should obtain a firearms certificate and what Home Office approval of a gun club really means. It has been said that one of the Bill's weaknesses is that it imposes stronger legislation on law-abiding shooters and does little to catch those who are in illegal possession of weapons.
There may be some substance in the charge, but I know that law-abiding shooters feel a sense of grievance that arises out of the actions of one man—Michael Ryan—and the dreadful crimes that he committed on 19 August 1987 with a self-loading rifle and a Beretta pistol. He killed 16 people and wounded 14 others.
I believe that the Government are right, and always have been, to react to that massacre for what it was—the worst massacre of its kind that we have ever witnessed in our nation. It shook the people of Hungerford and west Berkshire, and its ripples went throughout the nation and even abroad. It is right that we should be implementing this legislation, because the Government had to react to that dreadful event and show the public that they could have confidence in our gun laws.
One of the consequences of Michael Ryan's dreadful act was that we all became aware that the Kalashnikov, which until then had seemed to be the weapon only of terrorists, might be held in our street, or in our next door neighbour's house, and that a crime as terrible as the one


at Hungerford could happen in any small country town. It became clear that a young man could go around with such a weapon and kill at least eight people with it, and kill a further eight with his pistol.
No Home Secretary could have walked away from Hungerford, closed the door of his office, and said, "It was the aberration of one man. It does not matter. We can forget it." As we know, he received a firearms certificate on 11 December 1986.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you may have wondered why I have detailed the way in which Ryan joined the Dunmore centre. I have done so to illustrate the reasoning behind my new clause. First, I pointed out that Ryan had to wait only three months before becoming a full member of the centre and being able to apply for a firearms certificate. The centre now insists on six months. That is not as a result of any directive from the Home Office. I cannot stress that too strongly. The centre itself has decided to raise the probationary period from three months to six months because there are no absolute Home Office rules on the matter.

Mr. Marland: Although the required membership period of the club has been increased from three months to six months, does it stipulate how many shooting lessons or how many hours of supervision a probationary member should have before being allowed to have a certificate?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I will not weary the House with the details, but I have the rules of the club which I should be delighted to give to my hon. Friend if he would care to look at them. In the rules, he will probably find the answer to his question.
I have already referred to whether the period should be three months or six months, and that is an important point. On it, hangs the question whether somebody can apply to have a firearms certificate and from that to own a firearm.
As a result of my visit to Dunmore I wrote to the deputy chief constable of Thames Valley asking him about police guidelines on the matter and, in particular, his view on the probationary period that somebody should serve before being allowed to become a full member of a gun club and, therefore, to apply for a firearms certificate. In his letter to me, dated 9 May 1988, and signed by J. B. Rutherford, deputy chief constable, he says:
experience has shown that the majority of Home Office approved clubs are well run and co-operate fully with the police when enquiries are made in respect of their members. However, the lack of guidelines in relation to rules of membership has led to different criteria being applied, particularly where the issue of professional membership is concerned. The majority of clubs within Thames Valley have a probationary period of six months but some have a three month period and others twelve. Some clubs insist on a minimum number of visits within the probationary period, others do not. It is perhaps in this area that greater uniformity would be beneficial given that Home Office approval is granted to a club but without a clear indication of how it should operate.
In a sense, that is the essence of my new clause. Obviously, I endorse every word of the deputy chief constable's letter, particularly the section that I have just read to the House. I should like to pick up two implications from the quotation. First, the writer said:

the majority of Home Office approved clubs are well run and co-operate fully with the police when enquiries are made of them in respect of their members.
That seems to carry within it the implication that some Home Office approved clubs do not fulfil those requirements. If that is the case, I wonder what sanctions can be taken against them.
Secondly, the deputy chief constable states that
greater uniformity would be beneficial given that Home Office approval is granted to a club but without a clear indication of how it should operate.
That point was reinforced by my visit to Dunmore. When I asked whether the centre had been constructed according to Home Office model rules, I was told that such rules do not exist. The shooting centre had been constructed with Home Office, guidance. The Home Office, with the co-operation of the Ministry of Defence, had approved the weapons that could be held, and the Army had vetted the firing range for safety, with the police involved from the beginning. The Home Secretary had to act, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on the way in which they have brought the Bill to the House and carried it through Committee.
The substance of new clause 6 relates to how somebody who wishes to become a shooter is able to obtain a firearms certificate and to which club he should be allowed to belong. That should be added as a qualification to be considered when issuing such a certificate.
We would all agree that firearms are, by definition, lethal weapons, even if they are used only for target or clay pigeon shooting. I am aware that other weapons such as crossbows come within the same definition, but I do not believe that anyone would dispute that the right to possess a firearms certificate is a right that should be given sparingly. Such a certificate should be given only when the person concerned has been established as being a fit and responsible person, with a knowledge of the mechanism of a firearm and of how to handle it and its ammunition to ensure the maximum safety of those within its vicinity. He should also have a secure place in which to store it. Such a consideration is already covered by the Bill.
Before the question of applying for a firearms certificate can arise, I want to ensure that a would-be shooter follows a definite pattern of entry into the sport, and that is the purpose of new clause 6. To an extent, it is a follow-on to the debate that we had in Committee on clause 11. In Committee I queried the difference between a Home Office-approved gun club and a bona fide gun club. Membership of both confers on a would-be shooter a certain standing in the eyes of a chief constable, which makes it more likely that he will be granted a firearms certificate. In reply to my question, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
The concept of what is a bona fide club always involves some subjectivity of judgment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 25 February 1988; c.214.]
I wonder whether that is a good enough basis on which a chief constable should form his opinion.
Following the Committee stage of the Bill, I visited the Dunmore shooting centre, which is one of the two Home Office-approved gun clubs of which Michael Ryan was a member. It was the first of the gun clubs that he joined. When he joined the centre as a provisional member on 8 September 1986, it was approved as a pistol shooting club only. As Ryan had no experience of pistol shooting, he filled out a questionnaire about himself and was given a


green, provisional member's identity card. He then came under the jurisdiction of the range officer, whose tasks are care of the range, general safety, weapon training, how to handle a weapon and how to load and unload it before even a shot is fired. When shooting begins, such a beginner fires only with the range officer in attendance on a one-to-one basis.
First, the new shooter is required to use a ·22 single-shot pistol, and only when the range officer is satisfied with the recruit's proficiency is he allowed to progress to a ·22 revolver, and so on to a ·38 revolver assuming always that he has shown that he can cope with a higher calibre gun.
When Ryan joined Dunmore, the probationary period before full membership could be claimed was three months. Every time he visited the centre he was required to sign in and the range officer—a former service NCO instructor—was in attendance.
Once Ryan's three months were completed, he was entitled to and applied for full membership of the centre, which he received. He then sent in his application for a firearms certificate to the chief constable of Thames Valley. He included in his application his membership of the Dunmore centre so that the police were able to check it and the number of times he had attended the club. I do not suggest, and do not want to suggest, that this multi-discipline approach has been a cause for concern. On the other hand, and bearing in mind the chief constable's remarks, is it not time that we standardised the probationary period for the first-time shooter seeking to own his weapon?
12 midnight
I was told that 99 per cent. of Dunmore's members own their own guns. Should not each Home Office-approved club answer to guidelines or model rules drawn up and issued by the Home Office, covering weapons, security and training standards? Lastly, should we not make full membership of a Home Office-approved club that has met those guidelines the only club membership that is acceptable to a chief constable issuing a firearms certificate to a first-time shooter? Once someone has acquired his or her firearms certificate, he or she can join any other gun club, whether approved or not.
New clause 6 would create a formal statutory entry into the sport of shooting with a pistol or rifle. That would increase the professionalism, competence and safety of all shooters, while enabling those running clubs or shooting centres to be aware of the Home Office-approved guidelines that would have to be followed if they wished to obtain what should be regarded as the jealously guarded epithet "Home Office-approved status."

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman had completed his speech.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall be brief, as I know that my hon. Friends are getting tired and do not want unnecessary delay.
It is a great pity that the Bill has reached this stage of its life with so many amendments still to be considered. We have been talking for five hours and have reached only the fourth of 36 groups of them. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that the Government were right to bring in the Bill when they did. It would have been much better if they had

delayed bringing it forward. [Interruption.] I very much regret the interruption of our business, which is preventing us from considering these problems properly. I shall try to resume my train of thought.
My hon. Friend the Minister was able to concede a great deal in Committee to hon. Members who thought that the Bill was not in the correct form. I congratulate him on that and on the tolerant way in which he has accepted the criticisms made by my hon. Friends during the debate, but there is one thing that I cannot understand, and I hope my hon. Friend will explain it now. Why. having given so many concessions to those who oppose the Bill's details, can he not reconsider the repeating rifle? Why does he think the self-loading rifle is more dangerous than a rifle that must be operated by bolt action but has twice as many bullets in its magazine? I do not understand what makes the self-loading rifle, in the numbers in which it is found, such an outstandingly dangerous weapon that it must be isolated and dealt with differently from all other types of firearm. My hon. Friend's concept of self-loading rifles —particularly those that are limited to five shots in the magazine—profoundly wrong.
No one wants Kalashnikovs to be widespread throughout the community, or self-loading rifles of any sort not to be properly looked after by competent people, but such rifles can be dangerous to the public for only two reasons: first, if they are stolen and fall into the hands of criminal elements; secondly, if the legal owner of the rifle is someone who should not have been given it in the first place. New clause 1 seems fully to meet the second of those problems, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would state specifically what he considers to be the shortcomings of the clause.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) so effectively said, the safeguards are comprehensive. He has drawn the attention of the House to the three main safeguards. The first is that the owner must have
held a firearms certificate for at least three years".
Secondly, he must have been
a full member of a rifle club for at least three years".
Thirdly, that club has to be affiliated to one of the two national bodies. The fourth condition is significant. Under the new clause the Home Secretary would have the power of approval for special clubs to be licensed to have only self-loading rifles. For the life of me I cannot see what is wrong with the new clause and why self-loading rifles should not be allowed with the conditions that the new clause applies to them. If the reason is not that people who are licensed should not have self-loading rifles, but that he rifles may be stolen from them, will the Minister give the House examples of when that danger has occurred? My understanding is that there are virtually no examples of rifles of any type having been stolen and used for criminal activities.
I ask my hon. Friend to deal specifically with those points, because at the moment I cannot see any other course but to vote for the new clause. I hope that sufficient of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will join me in doing so.

Mr. Martyn Jones: By ignoring most of this group of new clauses and amendments the Government have reinforced the attitude that they took in Committee, in that they have completely missed the point. It is the type of person, not the type of weapon, that is important.
An opportunity is being lost to effect sensible changes to the legislation. For example, why is no amendment being accepted to consider the mental history of an applicant? Many applicants may slip through, but many may also be weeded out. Why is no amendment being accepted to inquire into the standing of an applicant with his peers in a recognised club? Why is every effort not being made to standardise the approach of the police to the examination of applicants? Indeed, why have we not had an inquiry into the issue of Michael Ryan's firearms certificate, which might have turned up some facts that were pertinent to the legislation? Instead, we have had a dogmatic approach, which does not tackle the real problems, but takes the easy way out, and attacks the firearm, not the firer. It leads me at least to suspect that there is something to hide in the circumstances surrounding the Hungerford tragedy.

Mr. Colvin: New clause 16, tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), is sensible. Any moves that led to greater consistency among police authorities would help in controlling firearms and their use. Had the county boundary between Hampshire and Berkshire been some 5 miles further north, and had Ryan been subject to the sort of investigation and controls exercised by my police authority, there is a good chance that he would not have been in possession of a firearms certificate, and perhaps not those weapons either. The proposal to produce a uniform application form for firearms certificates is sensible and I hope that the Government will take it on board. If there is a vote, I shall support it.
I also support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who spoke so ably to new clause 1. The Government said that they introduced the legislation to meet public demand and that these are tougher controls following the Hungerford massacre, but I wonder what evidence there is of that great public demand. Much has been written in the press perhaps, but I suspect that the Government have not taken sufficient account of the legitimate views of the shooting lobby.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister, who will reply to this debate, will know that the shooting lobby consists of about 5 million people. Shooting is the second greatest participatory sport, and that means that on average there are 7,500 legitimate supporters of shooting in every constituency in the land. That is why our mail bags have been full of letters, many of them from Conservative supporters who just cannot understand why the Government have reacted in the way that they have to the Hungerford massacre.
Why do we have these proposals, and why are the Government hinting that they may not support new clause 1? It goes back to the 1973 Green Paper, which I suspect forms the basis of the proposals in the Bill. That Green Paper showed very clearly that out of 4,402 offences involving firearms between 1969 and 1971—a period that just preceded the Green Paper—only 120 featured firearms that had been licensed, and that every one had either been stolen or otherwise taken from its legitimate owner. Therefore, out of 1,020,000 firearms licensed in England and Wales, not one case could be found of a certificate holder using his guns for the commission of a crime. I suspect that that is still the case today.
As hon. Members have said in this debate and in others, it is not the weapon that is important, but the finger on the trigger that counts. I think that it was a former Home Secretary who had an accident on a grouse moor and peppered somebody in the backside. Surely that shows that it is the finger on the trigger that we have to watch, not the weapon. It is fair to remind the House that the double-barrelled shotgun is much more likely to be used in its sawn off state in the execution of crime than is the self-loading rifle. When my hon. Friend winds up the debate, perhaps he will tell us how many crimes in Britain have been committed with self-loading rifles.

Mr. Wall: I support new clause 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and in particular subsection (c) of that clause which deals with giving in writing the reasons for the renewal of a firearms or shotgun certificate.
In the debate on new clause 5, I appreciated the difficulties that arise in examining a person's qualifications and I listened to the Minister's speech about that. I had an experience some years ago which demonstrates those difficulties and shows why I support new clause 11. In 1982, I had the misfortune to make a speech that became nationally infamous. It became known as my "rivers of blood" speech, an exaggerated description.
Arising out of the publicity in the press, in the course of my job of commercial buying and selling, a business man came to see me. He had been chairman of the federation of his branch of industry in his city, a pillar of society. We went out at lunchtime to have a sandwich and a half of beer and as we walked to the car park he said, "Could I say something personally?" I told him that he could say anything that he wanted to say. He said, "How would you obtain firearms?" I said, "As far as I know, if you want a firearms certificate, you join a gun club, you are trained in the use of guns, and after a while the club accepts your membership and gives you advice on how to apply for one." He said, "I should have thought that you would have known how to get them much more easily." I had to assure him that I did not have a cache of arms awaiting the insurrection, and that the only collection I had was of Everton programmes and old jazz records, and he was somewhat disappointed. I said, "In any event, why do you want a gun?" "Well," he said, "I have built an atomic bomb shelter"—he had the money to do that, which most people have not—"and it is no use having that unless I can defend it." Such survivalists—Michael Ryan was in some ways a survivalist—should not be granted a licence to hold weapons that can kill and maim people.
12.15 am
The point about that case is that the man was a member of society who, had he gone about it in the right way, could have joined a gun club. He was a respectable business man, and a nice chap, a decent family man with no criminal record. Unless he said something loose along the lines of what he said to me, in his misapprehension that was fed by The Sun, the Daily Mirror and other such journals, he would have been granted a firearms licence that he would have used to defend his bomb shelter.
The gun lobby puts the point of view of 5 million decent people who participate in the sport of shooting with various types of guns. It must understand that one of the reasons why it does not get the support of the Opposition to which its membership entitles it is that many of us have


looked on gun ownership as something for gentlemen, and particularly the landed gentry. We feel that guns are the prerogative of such people. The legislation dealing with firearms, which was introduced during the 1920s, was the direct result of the events of the Russian revolution in 1917.
I am afraid, as are others, that people have been refused a licence for a shotgun on the basis of their involvement in trade unions or trade union militancy, when the business man that I described could have got a licence, and been a danger to others. However, I strongly support the right of the individual to be told why he has been refused the licence in the first place, or a renewal of his licence. The issuing of licences is a difficult business, as the debate has made clear. We, as members of society, have to take the responsibility of refusing licences to those whom we think are not capable of using guns in a responsible manner. In all walks of life, people are entitled to know the reason for the refusal, which should be given in writing, and they should be given the right to appeal in court. Therefore, I support new clause 11.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I could not possibly agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall). I do not think that he would suggest that a person should be told why he did not get a job, or why he did not pass some medical examination. It is impossible to prove a negative, and if the hon. Gentleman reflected on that, he would see why it is impossible for reasons to be given as to why the firearms licence is withheld.
New clause 12, with which we began the debate, is sensible and we ought to have brought together the certificates for shotguns, and for pistols and rifles, years ago. The House will be doing us a service if it passes new clause 12.
There are numerous other new clauses and amendments, and I shall comment briefly on only two of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), speaking with his deep and passionate knowledge of the Hungerford affair, deserves in every way to be listened to most carefully by the House. If I understood him correctly, he supports the conterminosity of firearm and rifle, but his new clause would then imply that every person wanting to get a shotgun certificate would also have to belong to a Home Office-approved gun club. If my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury can assure me that that is not the case, I need say no more about his new clause. However, as it stands at present and in the context of his comments about supporting conterminosity, he certainly appears to be suggesting that every applicant for a shotgun licence should go through a Home Office-approved club.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am sorry that I conveyed that impression to my hon. Friend. Just as in our driving licences certain sections cover the vehicles that we are allowed to drive, according to which part of the test we have passed, so there could be a single document, divided into two sections, the first covering shotguns and the second covering firearms, and a person would apply according to what he wanted.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It is clear that my hon. Friend's new clause would not require the applicant for a shotgun licence to take that route.
The Bill is immensely complex and highly technical and, as usual, it will be left to the police to implement and

enforce it. It is essential, therefore, that the legislation is clear, as simple as possible and, above all, uniform. The state of affairs will always vary from one police area to another because circumstances and chief officers of police vary. It is Parliament's duty to ensure that at least the parameters of legislation are the same.
So far as possible, the Home Secretary—this is probably what he would wish to do—should ensure that there is a standard form of application throughout the country, that the conditions for refusal of or agreement to the issue of a licence should be the same, that the conditions that the applicant will have to meet should be the same and that the photographs should be the same. There should also be the same number of photographs. I believe that there should be three, so that the police have a copy. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), with his experience of these matters in Northern Ireland, was entirely right about that. In addition, the authentication of the photographs should he the same throughout the country.

Mr. Frank Cook: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we allow the Bill to go through unamended, fewer photographs would be required in Northern Ireland than the police there at present believe are necessary?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I understand that that is probably the case, but, as it is a procedural point, I am unable to confirm or deny it. However, if, perversely, as a result of the legislation, no third photograph were available to the police in Northern Ireland—I know that that is most important in security terms—we should be doing a great disservice, as my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware.
It is essential that, after the great amount of time that the House has spent on this matter, both Houses of Parliament should agree arrangements whereby we can create standard forms of examination of those who wish to obtain certificates to carry firearms and that they should be clearly examined on those criteria. It should be clear how a person obtains a gun and what can lead to his being refused the right to have a gun. Above all else, the police should have clarity.
Virtually every hon. Member, including myself, has a distaste for records going into computers, but, in modern policing terms, it is essential that the police national computer should be able to obtain access to all the data about people who have guns. That can be done only if there are standard methods of interrogation and standard methods in respect of the agreement to the issue of a certificate.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I add my support to the observations made some time ago by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who made a most formidable case in support of the self-loading rifle. I do not intend to repeat the hon. Gentleman's observations other than to remind the House that they were received in something approaching deafening silence by those who occupy the Government Front Bench. It is clear from the reports of the proceedings in Committee that the case was being advanced not for the first time. When it was made in Committee, the impression was given that there might be some scope for concession. Like the hon. Member for Dumfries, I await with rapt anticipation the Minister's response to the hon. Gentleman's penetrating and pungent observations.
I understand and appreciate the motives behind the decision of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) to table new clause 6. He spoke to it, if I may say so, in an informed and restrained manner, but I regret to say that if it is pressed to a Division I shall not find myself able to support it. As I understand it, it means that any applicant for a firearms certificate for a rifle—any rifle—would have to show that he or she had been a member of a Home Office approved club for at least six months. In the more populated parts of the United Kingdom that may be a qualification that is easy to achieve, but for a young assistant stalker in the far north-west of Scotland, for example, his nearest club may be 100 miles away or at least, to put it colloquially, a day's march.
I do not demur from the proposition that anyone who is admitted to the responsibility of a firearms certificate should be able to demonstrate that he is a fit and responsible person. However, if the provisions of new clause 6 are the necessary qualifications to be regarded as a fit and reasonable person, they will, at least in geographical terms, place an unfair burden on a number of individuals who could claim legitimately to be entitled to be the holders of firearms certificates. For that reason, new clause 6 does not commend itself to me, however well intentioned it may be.

Mr. Bellingham: I am pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) supports new clause 1 and the quasi concession that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave in Committee. I am pleased also to have the opportunity to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) about the Ryan certificates.
As I understand it, the Thames Valley constabulary were right to issue Ryan with his firearms certificate. By the time that he received the certificate he was a fully paid-up member of the Dunmore club. However, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the variation of the certificate. Under the stipulation of good reason, the Thames Valley constabulary should have gone through the process again to ascertain exactly whether there was a good reason for the variation of a certificate, which referred to pistols, to include a Kalashnikov and an M1 carbine. Logic dictates that a good reason should have been shown for possessing such weapons, and that would have meant full membership of a rifle club. We all know that Ryan was only a probationary member of the Wiltshire rifle club. I submit that the Thames Valley constabulary were not adhering to their standing orders and that the officers in question were ignoring completely what they had been told and the instructions with which they had been issued at various seminars.
The Government's case that the Bill is necessary because the Ryan tragedy has made the existing firearms legislation nonsensical is not one that I consider to be sustainable. It is time that my hon. Friend the Minister commented upon that. My hon. Friend should comment on the statistical point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made so eloquently. In 1986, 3,177 offences were committed involving firearms. Only 27 of them involved rifles—0·85 per cent.—and quite a few of

them were·22s. Has my hon. Friend had a chance since Standing Committee to work out how many of those rifles were self-loading?
12.30 am
The Shooting Foundation has said:
Ryan's was the only case recorded since records were kept when a rifle of any description has been used in violent crime by its lawful owner.
The Home Office has not denied that. Michael Ryan was the first person in recorded history to use in a crime a rifle described on his certificate. As the Thames Valley constabulary should never have given Ryan the certificate in the first place, we are legislating on a shaky basis. My hon. Friend knows full well, however, that I support many aspects of the Bill. I certainly agree with a Bill that to some extent improves firearms legislation, although I am worried about some points.
I am sure that hon. Members would like to know something about practical shooting. If the Bill is passed in its present form, the sport of practical shooting will be annihilated. This sport is a limited discipline involving shooting at moving targets with a self-loading rifle. There are about 20,000 members of the United Kingdom Practical Rifle Commission and the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association. There are 124 affiliated clubs, with a total membership of 16,600.
The sport of practical shooting is growing in popularity. It is growing as an international sport and will soon be an Olympic sport. There are about 400 or 500 high-powered practical shots who shoot abroad regularly and compete in international competitions. If the new clause is passed in its present form, we shall deny those people their sport and wipe out the important discipline of target shooting.
For the past 120 or so years rifle shooting has been done, in the main, with bolt-action rifles. Most target shooting involves traditional target rifles. The technology is developing and the sport will not stand still. It is likely that in the coming years the self-loading rifle will be used increasingly as a target rifle in more than one discipline. If we do not have an escape route for these practical shooters, such as is proposed in new clause I, we shall not only deny this sport to the many people involved in it but prevent anyone in the future from participating in it.
If the Bill is passed in its present form, for the first time a civilian will not be able to participate in a rifle competition with the Army's main infantry weapon. Until now, a civilian who passes strict criteria that are part and parcel of section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 can participate in shooting competitions with the Army's main battle weapon. If, God forbid, there were ever a conflict or war, we would rue the fact that we did not have a pool of civilian marksmen on whom to call.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has gone through the details of new clause 1. We are looking, not at the weapon, but at individuals and applying rigid criteria to individuals. Very few individuals will pass those strict criteria. However, some will and will carry on the growing sport of practical shooting. We debated this issue at considerable length in Committee. The Minister made it clear that he could not do anything about practical shooting, but was prepared to look very carefully at self-loading rifles with a limited magazine capacity of up to five. That would not completely protect the sport of


practical shooting, but it would mean that in competitions some shooters could use self-loading rifles with magazines holding up to five bullets.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries made clear, disabled people who cannot shoot with a bolt-action rifle on the ranges while deer-stalking or for vermin control will be able to possess a weapon for those purposes. Some people cannot use their right arms, or they may have no fingers on one hand. Paraplegics are similarly affected. If the Bill is passed and the Minister does not back his quasi commitment, those disabled people will be deprived of their sport. That would be very wrong.
I remind my hon. Friend that we had conversations together on many occasions. I recall a dark night back in March when we were up together quite late. He said that if I supported him on clause I stand part he would do all that he possibly could to come up with a concession on self-loading rifles. I said that I would support him on clause I stand part if he came up with the concession. He knows as well as I do that if there had been a vote on clause 1 stand part in Committee he would have lost it. He gave us a commitment and I feel bad and appalled that he has not produced a suitable amendment on Report. That is very sad. He cannot be surprised if we feel very disappointed that he has not delivered on this crucial point.
There is a way out. My hon. Friend can reconsider the matter now. We should like him to go all the way with new clause 1, but if not, we hope that he will go some way and adhere to what I believe was a semi-commitment that he made in Committee. He has the answer before him this evening and I hope very much that he does not want to destroy completely a sport and cause grave offence to many disabled people. I hope that he will consider this issue very seriously when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Frank Cook: Hon. Members who served on the Committee on the Bill will recall that I arrived on the Committee without a particular opinion about the proposed legislative changes. I was conscripted to Whip the Committee and I had no opinions any particular way. However, I gradually realised what the proposals contained. I had to do something in Committee apart from prepare my Christmas cards, so I read the proposed legislation.
It became apparent that the legislation was ill-thought out and ill-prepared. We have considered many different aspects, including the size of shot, possible modification of different weapons, the verification of how those modifications have taken place, whether they should be reversible, what kind of weapons cabinets should be used and how weapons should travel from gun club to grouse moor.
We have gone into all kinds of detail, but behind it all there remains one unexplained—but I hope not inexplicable—aspect. This evening, the House heard a most moving contribution by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who spoke with feeling and real concern about the occurrences at Hungerford. There seems no doubt that the proposed legislation has come about as a direct result of the sad and tragic incidents of that day. No one denies that there is cause for deep concern and a need to find a way of dealing with circumstances such as those that arose at Hungerford.
The hon. Member for Newbury reminded the House that eight of the Hungerford victims were shot with a

Kalashnikov self-loading rifle, but that eight others were shot with a Beretta 9 mm hand gun. What troubles me is why there should be so much concern about the self-loading rifle, which is a weapon difficult to conceal, troublesome to transport and not easy to use. The Bill appears to be deliberately structured to handle that class of weapon, and that class alone—or little else. However, the Beretta can be tucked into a waistband, slipped under an armpit or otherwise concealed and carried with great ease —yet it is not covered by the Bill.
I support many of the points which have been made, such as harmonisation throughout all the police constabularies in the United Kingdom and the security aspects of keeping weapons.
The question of locking mechanisms was brought to the attention of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). However, the question why the self-loading rifle should be covered by the Bill while the 9mm hand gun is excluded is crucial. I am not saying that SLRs should not be more tightly controlled; controls on all types of weaponry should be tightened. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why one class of weapon should be singled out for inclusion while another is left untouched.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: New clause 6 is defectively drafted, so we cannot pass it. It reads:
Before a Chief Constable issues a firearms certificate to a person who has never previously held a rifle or pistol".
What on earth does that mean? I think that it was meant to mean, "who has never previously been authorised to possess a rifle or pistol", but that is not what it says. So I do not think that we need waste much more time on it.
New clause I certainly has my support, but it would need an amendment in another place because it has one very obvious shortcoming. For instance, it would prohibit an instructor in small arms from the armed forces who has been serving abroad and who would not therefore hold a firearms certificate, because he would not be subject to a civilian police force in Britain or meet the qualifications for so doing. He probably will not belong to a rifle club if he is serving overseas—nor would he need to, because he would attend rifle meetings as a member of the armed forces.
What needs to be added to any new clause of this kind —if necessary, in another place—is "who has been a member of Her Majesty's armed forces during the preceding three years." It is manifestly absurd that somebody who has been properly instructed in the armed forces, or indeed who has been instructing others, and who has participated in numerous rifle meetings in the armed forces, should be forbidden from holding a firearms certificate for a self-loading rifle that he has been using for years in competition as well as daily in the armed forces, because he has not held a firearms certificate for at least three years.
Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) in new clause I are not alternatives; they are all necessary conditions for holding a firearms certificate. Although the clause is certainly an improvement on what is in the Bill, and on that basis it will have my support if it is carried to a Division, it would need an amendment in another place. It is so easy to forget the needs of members of the armed forces—for council houses when they leave the forces., and for many other such


things. In drafting the new clause, my hon. Friend had in mind civilians, but not the position of those leaving Her Majesty's armed forces.

Mr. Marland: After hearing so many speeches in a similar vein, we cannot pretend that there is not considerable disappointment in the House at the state of affairs this evening. Not only have we had a very long Committee stage, but there seem to be so many loose ends in the Bill as it comes before us now, and there is so much dissatisfaction with it, that I cannot help wondering how much confidence it will inspire outside the House. After all, the object of a great deal of the legislation is surely to encourage those outside that the world will be safer as a result of its passage.
I speak unashamedly in support of new clause 1. As I see it, the object of the legislation is to try to stop accidents. We want more safety, but without—as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said—being seen to be introducing a nanny state. In my view, paragraph (b) of the new clause would ensure competence in the operators, owners or users of firearms.
My question to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) about how much instruction was given at Home Office-approved clubs has produced an interesting answer. The club rules state:
A minimum period of 6 weeks and maximum of 6 months probation including a minimum of 12 x ½ hours details shall normally be served by all Probationary Members. On the completion of the above period the secretary shall review the Applicant's number of attendances, depth of interest, apparent character and conduct.
If, in the secretary's opinion, these are satisfactory, he is able to confer full membership on that person.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Unless I have misunderstood him, that seems rather different from what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) was saying. Did my hon. Friend refer to a minimum of six weeks' and a maximum of six months' probation? That is rather different from a six-month probationary period.

Mr. Marland: The club rules lay down a minimum of six weeks' and a maximum of six months' probation, including a minimum of 12 half-hour details—which presumably means shooting lessons, or time in which the person is instructed in how to handle the guns.
I believe that introducing legislation of this sort would go some way towards reassuring the public, which, after all, is what we are trying to do.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) said about the practical shooters. I believe that it is wrong to deny British sportsmen the opportunity to go forward in a newly emerging sport so that they can compete on the world stage. I also agree with my hon. Friend that we must spare a thought for those who are disabled and unable to use any sort of rifle, other than a self-loader.
I hope, like others, that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider new clause 1 very carefully, and possibly give it his support at the end of the debate.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: This has been a long debate and it has covered a range of subjects. At the heart of the debate is the Government's attitude to the self-loading rifle, and I shall therefore begin with that.
I think it desirable that we should make plain what we are talking about. We are talking about whether it is right to allow private people to possess full-bore, fast-firing, paramilitary guns.

Sir Hector Monro: No, no, no.

Mr. Hogg: I hear my hon. Friend saying "No, no, no." It is perfectly true that both tonight and on other occasions he has limited his advocacy to self-loading rifles—five-shot and eight-shot—but that is not incorporated in new clause1. It is unlimited.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) made a strong case on behalf of practical shooters. I have had discussions with practical shooters, who say that the only equipment that will serve their sport is a large, detachable magazine, full-bore rifle. For practical shooters the integral self-loading rifle of the kind advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is useless. We have to be absolutely certain about what equipment it is that we are discussing. We are discussing fast-firing, full-bore, large-magazine, paramilitary guns.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend is referring to fast-loading paramilitary rifles because it suits him to do so, but we are referring to new clause 1. This has to be read in conjunction with the later group of amendments, which we hope will also be agreed to, which would limit rifles to the shotguns that we are discussing. When read in conjunction with the clause, that would produce the right effect.

Mr. Hogg: There is a difference of view between us on this matter. I am prepared to accept that my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Sir H. Bonsor) and for Dumfries are concerned only to secure either a five-shot or an eight-shot integral magazine gun, but that is not the only argument on this side of the House. In order to sustain the case that he has made on behalf of practical shooters, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West must hold out for the large, detachable magazine, full-bore rifle. We cannot otherwise serve the interests of practical shooters. New clause 1 is unlimited in terms of the size of the magazine and the number of bullets that it can hold.
I do not dispute for a moment that a self-loading rifle can be used for a variety of lawful pastimes—for deer stalking, culling deer and shooting foxes at night—but the question that we have to ask is not whether it can be used, but whether we need to use it. Is it necessary to use a full-bore large-magazine, fast-firing gun for those purposes? The answer is no.
I agree that a self-loading rifle can be used for traditional target shooting, but the question is not whether it can be used, but whether it needs to be used. The answer, once again, is no. The National Rifle Association has made that clear on a number of occasions. The use of self-loading rifles for international, traditional target shooting is positively prohibited. It is interesting to note that at its Bisley meet the National Rifle Association provides a number of competitions in which self-loading rifles are used, but last year only five civilians participated.


It is true that those competitions are essentially for service men, but only five civilians participated in that class of sport.
I now turn to practical shooting, the cause which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West has made his own. I agree that if we prohibit full-bore, fast-firing, large-magazine guns we shall destroy certain parts of practical shooting that rely on a self-loading rifle. We shall not destroy it entirely, because about 80 per cent. of its members use self-loading pistols, but I agree that it will destroy the sport for those who depend on the self-loading rifle. The question is whether the public interest requires us to do that. The House has to make that judgment, but I believe that it does.

Mr. Corbett: indicated assent.

Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) shares my view on the matter.
I shall now deal with my comments and undertakings in Committee. I have never tried to pretend otherwise to hon. Members: I am a settler, a compromiser. If I can reach a compromise, I like to do so. I make no apology for that. In Committee I made it plain that I thought there was no need for a self-loading rifle of the kind that I have described and that in my opinion there were insufficient numbers of self-loading rifles to justify their retention in clause 1. I said that I would look seriously and sympathetically at whether it would be right to retain them in clause 1 if they had integral magazines containing no more than 3, 4 or 5 rounds. That is what I did. I looked at it seriously, I challenged the issue and I reached what I consider to be a fair conclusion. I have described my conclusion tonight.
Hon. Members who think that I misled the House in some way should look at Hansard. I recommend that they read columns 323, 324, 325, 330, 363 and 396. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West thought it right to recount to the House a conversation that I may have had with him—I do not recall it, but I do not dispute it—it would he profitable for him to read column 396. He said:
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. We shall come back to this matter on Report … My hon. Friend has made it clear that he is prepared to accept that a class of self-loading rifles will remain in private hands.
I replied:
I do not want to prolong the debate. What I have said is what I mean. I shall consider carefully the range of rifles to which I have referred. It is not a commitment, I have to clear it with colleagues. It is not a guarantee. My hon. Friend has heard what I have said and I propose to do what I have said. He must not try to enlarge on it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 10 March 1988; c 396.]
I have made that statement in different words at different times in the debate. Anybody who says that I ratted on a commitment is wrong. I resent that imputation.
The other thing that I said very strongly in Committee was that there was not a range of self-loading rifles of the kind now argued for—3, 4 or 5-shot integral magazines— sufficient to make the amendment sensible. That is what I argued in Committee, and that is the case. It may be of interest to the House to know some facts.
I have a list of such guns, and I shall remind the House of them. The Ruger .44 is a sporting rifle. It has a four-shot tube and was last made in 1985. The Browning Sporting is still being made and has a detachable magazine containing

no more than three or four rounds. The Savage .170, a pump-action rifle, was made up to 1985. The Remington Gamemaster, with five shots, was made up to 1950. The Browning Sporting, with five shots, is so old that it can only be identified as old. The only relevant military rifle is the French St. Etienne, which was not made beyond 1918. There is only one gun which falls within the classification and is still manufactured. It does not seem to make much sense to found legislation on one gun.
1 am
The House has to come to a conclusion on this important issue. I share the view of the hon. Member for Erdington that we should not legalise self-loading rifles. There is no justification for doing so. The Government's stance on the matter is correct.
The views of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) are to be respected, and I entirely understand his concern. What the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said is, however, correct. There are a variety of reasons why people need a gun and do not necessarily belong to a club. The most notable reasons are vermin control and deer stalking. Such people do not belong to clubs, for the most part. That problem goes to the root of my hon. Friend's new clause 6, although I understand why he tabled it.
In new clause 8, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) advocates a most complicated and bureaucratic form of appeal. He is a well-known enemy of bureaucracy, and I praise him for it. Section 44 of the Firearms Act 1968 provides for a perfectly sensible form of appeal on all the issues to which he referred, and there is no possible justification for building yet further on it.
On new clauses 9 and 11, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East made important points regarding time limits and the notification of reasons. I find myself in complete agreement with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said on the matter, so it is not necessary to elaborate yet further.
On new clause 10, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East suggested that we should ask a range of complicated questions. I have read the questions that he has asked, and I have to tell him that they would not prevent a madman obtaining a gun. Nor do they address the problem of the person becoming mad during the currency of the certificate.
As for amendment No. 147 and the standard application form, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the firearms rules of 1969 already provide for a standard application form for the granting, variation and renewal of firearms certificates, and shotgun licences. To that extent, his anxiety is already met.
In amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 146, the hon. Gentleman raised interesting questions about photographs. They are not necessary. As for the verification of photographs, why should the chief constable be involved? The rules already provide that a person of good standing is sufficient, and that is correct. We agree that there should be two photographs. We do not think that there should be three. The only justification for three is the existence of a computerised bank, and technology is capable of making as many reproductions of the second photograph as are necessary.
As for amendment No. 80, I would not advise the hon. Gentleman to set out in rule form the type of territorial


conditions that he would like, because they would be too rigid. It must be possible to tailor a territorial condition to meet the circumstances of an applicant.
This lengthy debate has covered a whole range of subjects. I commend new clause 12 to the House, but I am afraid that I cannot commend the other new clauses or amendments.

Sir Hector Monro: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has addressed the House once.

Sir Hector Monro: With the leave of the House. Hon. Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The House has withheld leave.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

CONDITIONS ATTACHING TO THE POSSESSION OF SELF-LOADING RIFLES

'No firearm certificate shall authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading or pump-action rifle to which section 5(2) (ab) of the principal Act applies unless that person—

(a) has held a firearms certificate for at least three years, and
(b) has been a full member of a rifle club for at least three years, and
(c) is a member of a club which is affiliated to the National Rifle Association or the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association and which has been approved by the Secretary of State as a club suitable for target shooting with self-loading rifles, and has satisfactorily completed a course of service rifle or practical rifle shooting approved by either of these Associations, or
(d) has a reason to possess such a gun because of disability or participation in vermin control or deer-culling.'.—[Sir Hector Monro]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 217.

Division No. 319]
[1.5 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Monro, Sir Hector


Beith, A. J.
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Bellingham, Henry
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Skinner, Dennis


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Wall, Pat


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Wallace, James


Colvin, Michael
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Whitney, Ray


Cryer, Bob
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Dixon, Don
Winterton, Nicholas


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)



McAllion, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Mr. Jerry Wiggins and Mr. Paul Marland.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ashby, David


Allason, Rupert
Atkinson, David


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amos, Alan
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony





Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hayes, Jerry


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Heddle, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Boswell, Tim
Hind, Kenneth


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bowis, John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brazier, Julian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bright, Graham
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Irvine, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jack, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Janman, Tim


Burns, Simon
Jessel, Toby


Burt, Alistair
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Butcher, John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Butler, Chris
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Butterfill, John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Knapman, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cash, William
Knowles, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lang, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Latham, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Conway, Derek
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lilley, Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Couchman, James
Lord, Michael


Cran, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maclean, David


Curry, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Day, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Mans, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dover, Den
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dunn, Bob
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Durant, Tony
Miller, Hal


Emery, Sir Peter
Mills, lain


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fallon, Michael
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Farr, Sir John
Moate, Roger


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moss, Malcolm


Forman, Nigel
Nelson, Anthony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Neubert, Michael


Forth, Eric
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Franks, Cecil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Freeman, Roger
Oppenheim, Phillip


French, Douglas
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Gill, Christopher
Patnick, Irvine


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Pawsey, James


Goodlad, Alastair
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Portillo, Michael


Gorst, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Gow, Ian
Raffan, Keith


Gower, Sir Raymond
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Redwood, John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Renton, Tim


Gregory, Conal
Rhodes James, Robert


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Riddick, Graham


Grist, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Ground, Patrick
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ryder, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Harris, David
Shaw, David (Dover)






Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tracey, Richard


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tredinnick, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Watts, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin
Wheeler, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thorne, Neil
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) wish to press new clause 6?

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: No, Sir.

New Clause 8

APPEALS IN CASES OF REFUSAL OF REGISTRATION

'(1) An appeal under section 20, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, or 38 of the principal Act lies in England and Wales to the Firearms Appeal Tribunal and in Scotland to the Scottish Firearms Appeal Tribunal and an appeal from a decision of any such tribunal on a point of law shall lie in England and Wales to the Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice and in Scotland to the Court of Session.

(2) The Home Secretary shall by regulations provide for the establishment of a tribunal or tribunals to determine appeals by persons in England and Wales aggrieved by any decision of a Chief Officer of Police under the principal Act or under this Act.

(3) The Secretary of State for Scotland shall by regulations provide for establishment of a tribunal or tribunals to determine appeals by persons in Scotland aggrieved by any decision of a Chief Constable under the principal Act or this Act.

(4) Regulations made by the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland may include provision for summoning persons to attend and give evidence and produce documents and for authorising the administration of Oaths to witnesses.

(5) There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament any administrative expenses incurred by the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland for the purposes of the principal Act or this Act.

(6) Section 14 of the Firearms Act is repealed.'.—[Mr. William Ross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 232.

Division No. 320]
[1.16 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Skinner, Dennis


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Dixon, Don



McAllion, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Mr. Pat Wall.





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Goodlad, Alastair


Allason, Rupert
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Amess, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Amos, Alan
Gorst, John


Arbuthnot, James
Gow, Ian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Ashby, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Atkinson, David
Gregory, Conal


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Baldry, Tony
Grist, Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Ground, Patrick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bellingham, Henry
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Harris, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hawkins, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Boswell, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Heddle, John


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hind, Kenneth


Bowis, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bright, Graham
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Irvine, Michael


Burns, Simon
Jack, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Janman, Tim


Butler, Chris
Jessel, Toby


Butterfill, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Carrington, Matthew
Knapman, Roger


Cash, William
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Chope, Christopher
Knowles, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Lang, Ian


Colvin, Michael
Latham, Michael


Conway, Derek
Lawrence, Ivan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Couchman, James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cran, James
Lightbown, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lilley, Peter


Curry, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lord, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
Maclean, David


Dorrell, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Dover, Den
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Dunn, Bob
Malins, Humfrey


Durant, Tony
Mans, Keith


Emery, Sir Peter
Marland, Paul


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fallon, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Farr, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Favell, Tony
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Miller, Hal


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mills, lain


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Monro, Sir Hector


Forth, Eric
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Franks, Cecil
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Freeman, Roger
Moss, Malcolm


French, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Newton, Rt Hon Tony






Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stevens, Lewis


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Page, Richard
Sumberg, David


Paice, James
Summerson, Hugo


Patnick, Irvine
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Powell, William (Corby)
Thurnham, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tracey, Richard


Redwood, John
Tredinnick, David


Renton, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Rhodes James, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Riddick, Graham
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walden, George


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wallace, James


Ryder, Richard
Ward, John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Watts, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wiggin, Jerry


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wilkinson, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Winterton, Nicholas


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Speller, Tony
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Squire, Robin
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Stern, Michael
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 11

RENEWAL OF AND TEMPORARY CERTIFICATES

'After section 26(1) of the principal Act (Application for, and grant of Certificates) there shall be inserted: —

"(1B) When an application for the renewal of a firearm or shotgun certificate has been made in the prescribed form to the Chief Officer of Police for the area in which the applicant resides no less than twenty-eight days prior to the date of expiry of the existing certificate and subject to the certificate holder not having been served with a notice of revocation then the Chief Officer of Police shall either:—

(a) grant a renewal of the firearm or shotgun certificate subject to subsection X below in either the terms of the expiring certificate, and/or
(b) issue a temporary certificate in the same terms and conditions as the expiring certificate, subject to subsection X below, and/or
(c) state in writing the reasons for refusal to grant the authority to possess each individual firearm/ammunition or shotguns and ammunition additionally stating the relevant section(s) of the Act in each case and notify the applicant of his right to appeal to Crown Court within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of such notification, subject to subsection X below, and/or
(d) state in writing any difficulty for delay external to the Police Service preventing the granting or the formal refusal to the processing of the application, subject to subsection X below, to the issue of a certificate.

(X) To be received by the certificate holder 48 hours prior to the expiry of the existing certificate".'.—[Mr. William Ross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 13, Noes 220.

Division No. 321
[1.29 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Beith, A. J.
Skinner, Dennis


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Wallace, James


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Corbett, Robin



Dixon, Don
Tellers for the Ayes:


McAllion, John
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Pat Wall.


Moonie, Dr Lewis





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Tony


Allason, Rupert
Emery, Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amos, Alan
Fallon, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkinson, David
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Franks, Cecil


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
French, Douglas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gorst, John


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gow, Ian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hanley, Jeremy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Christopher


Butler, Chris
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cash, William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Chope, Christopher
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Irvine, Michael


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Janman, Tim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)






Knowles, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lang, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Latham, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lightbown, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lilley, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speed, Keith


Maclean, David
Speller, Tony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Malins, Humfrey
Squire, Robin


Mans, Keith
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stevens, Lewis


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Summerson, Hugo


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Miller, Hal
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mills, lain
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thorne, Neil


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Page, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Paice, James
Ward, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wheeler, John


Portillo, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Raffan, Keith
Wilshire, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Redwood, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Renton, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Rhodes James, Robert
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Yeo, Tim


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roe, Mrs Marion



Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tellers for the Noes:


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Ryder, Richard
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 14

REGISTER OF FIREARMS ETC

'Each chief officer of police shall establish within three months of the coming into force of this Act and subsequently maintain on a daily basis, a register of shot guns, firearms and ammunition, and licences and certificates, reported lost or stolen which shall include a description of such weapons and ammunition with the name and address of the certificate holder entitled to possess the weapon, on a separate register, details of which shall be passed to the police national computer.'.—[Mr. Corbett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Corbett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 17—Firearms officers—
Where in the opinion of the chief officer of police the number of firearm certificates and or shot gun licences warrants it, two officers, not below the rank of superintendent, shall be designated as firearms officers whose

duties shall include regular periodic checks upon the number and type of weapons and ammunition held by authorised dealers in the area of their police force.'.

Mr. Corbett: It will probably be for the convenience of the House if I deal with the new clause briefly, although it is an important clause on an extremely serious topic. If the Government have anxieties about the time that Ministers and Conservative Back Bench Members go to bed tonight, they should reflect on the fact that they could have accepted the motion to recommit the Bill for further consideration in Committee, which would have been a better way to proceed. The Government had a choice.
The purpose of new clause 14 is to require each chief officer of police to establish within three months a register of shotguns, firearms, ammunition, licences and certificates that are reported lost or stolen, and to ensure that it is maintained daily. It is amazing that no register in this form is maintained now.
Paragraph 26 of the White Paper of December 1987 on proposals for the reform of firearms legislation states:
It is remarkable that the police at present have so little information either about individual weapons or about the number of shotguns legally held.
I do not doubt that there were many within this place, and certainly outside it, who found that statement an admission of the most outstanding complacency. Everything that we heard on Second Reading and in Committee supported that view. The Government can only guesstimate the number of self-loading rifles that are knocking about. It is a frightening fact, and one that will bring no comfort to those who are properly concerned with public safety.
If that is the position with legally held shotguns and firearms, I suspect that it is probably the case with weapons and ammunition that are reported lost or stolen. I suspect that in many instances weapons that are reported lost or stolen and not recovered find their way fairly easily into criminal hands, and are those that are more commonly used illegally and perhaps criminally. The most meticulous attention should be paid to lost or stolen weapons, ammunition or certificates. I know that thousands of replacement certificates, for example, are issued each year when the originals are reported lost or stolen. When I asked the Under-Secretary of State in February how many duplicate shotgun and firearm certificates were issued by each police force area in the last year for which figures were available, and the preceding year, I was told that the information that I had requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
That means, if that phrase has any meaning, that those responsible for overseeing firearms control—Ministers take responsibility for this—do not have a clue about the number of legally held weapons that are knocking about and the number of duplicate certificates that have been issued. This is extremely worrying. There is ample scope for misuse because as things have stood since the Firearms Act 1968 was enacted certificates do not have to bear an up-to-date photograph of the holder. There can be few other countries beset by terrorist activities in one part of its boundaries that can behave in such a manner that is at best careless.
The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that such a register is maintained and updated and the information passed to the national police computer so that the police can be more quickly helped to trace the lawful owner of a weapon which is used in violent crime. Everything that can


be discovered about the route between the lawful owner, and presumably the person who reports the weapon lost or stolen, and the weapon discovered at the scene of a crime can be extremely helpful to the police.
1.45 am
New clause 17 asks a question which has been asked before but which did not get a satisfactory reply. That is why it has been tabled. It provides that, where significant numbers of applications for firearms certificates and shotgun licences are dealt with, the police should be able to designate firearms officers whose only job is to handle these matters and, as important, to make periodic checks on the number and type of weapons and ammunition held by authorised dealers in their police force area.
Suppose that there is a gun shop that employs two or three staff and that, at the end of every day's transactions, there is no physical check of the stock room, although someone may look through what has been sold that day. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone in the gun shop owner's employ could be approached and offered money to steal a weapon from those premises. It could be days, if not weeks, before that theft is uncovered by the owner. That should not and cannot be tolerated.
As I have said repeatedly, we want to do our best to ensure that one of the Bill's ambitions—properly to look after the public safety aspects of our legislation—is achieved. The new clauses will help to do that.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I agree with the spirit of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) seeks to achieve in new clause 14. I suspect that the measure is not necessary, because the police will do what he wants. It would not have been practicable for them to do so until this legislation, because previously firearms were not required to be described or numbered. The numbers of guns held by an individual did not all have to be contained on the certificate. The Bill will bring those details forward. From now on, it will be possible for the police to maintain the type of register that the hon. Gentleman seeks. I am not sure that it is necessary to require the police to do that by statute; I suspect that they will do it anyway.

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the police nationally maintain a stolen property index. As I understand it, it does not have a separate compartment for weapons and ammunition reported stolen. I assume that that index is computerised—if it is not, it should be. I am asking only for another two or three files to be opened in that record to identify those items separately more quickly.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: That may well be true, but in the past it was not practicable for the police to maintain such a register, because the details that the Bill prescribes were not available. It will be practicable to do so in future. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do, but I am not certain that it is necessary to prescribe it by statute.
I oppose new clause 17. I am not sure that it is appropriate to prescribe the very high ranks of officers that the hon. Member for Erdington wishes to do this job. That would cost the country something like £4 million a year in additional policing costs.
With regard to both new clauses 14 and 17, it is not appropriate for the House to tell the police how to deploy manpower. That is an operational judgment. It is right that the law should indicate the will of Parliament, but it should not get into the details of prescribing the ranks of officers to be used or how they should be used. Those are operational matters for the chief officer to determine.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths).
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) moved the new clause briefly and was to the point. I agree that it is desirable that the police should have additional information of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Erdington and that that should be centrally stored.
It is perhaps necessary to remind the House that a register of the kind proposed would not prevent crime. At the very best, it would facilitate the recovery of weapons, the tracing of owners and preparation to ensure better records. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that that should not be a mandatory requirement imposed by Parliament. It must be for the judgment of the police to determine where that particular suggestion ranks in order of priority and that is not a matter for Parliament.
I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds about new clause 17. That is an operational matter for police forces. In particular, it is an operational matter to decide how many, and of what rank, the officers in question should be. The dealers are already under a duty to permit police who want to make inspections, and the memorandum of guidance urges the police to do just that. Although I understand the force of the arguments presented by the hon. Member for Erdington, I am afraid that I cannot commend new clauses 14 and 17 to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 208.

Division No. 322]
[1.51 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Beith, A. J.
Skinner, Dennis


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Wall, Pat


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Wallace, James


Corbett, Robin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Cryer, Bob



Dixon, Don
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. John McAUion.


Moonie, Dr Lewis





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Allason, Rupert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Amess, David
Bowis, John


Amos, Alan
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Ashby, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Chris


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Butterfill, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carrington, Matthew


Boswell, Tim
Cash, William






Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Chope, Christopher
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Harris, David


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, Christopher


Conway, Derek
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heddle, John


Couchman, James
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cran, James
Hind, Kenneth


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Curry, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Day, Stephen
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Dover, Den
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dunn, Bob
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Durant, Tony
Irvine, Michael


Emery, Sir Peter
Jack, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Janman, Tim


Fallon, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Favell, Tony
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Kirkhope, Timothy


Forman, Nigel
Knapman, Roger


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Forth, Eric
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Franks, Cecil
Knowles, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Lang, Ian


French, Douglas
Latham, Michael


Gale, Roger
Lawrence, Ivan


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Gill, Christopher
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Goodlad, Alastair
Lightbown, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Lilley, Peter


Gorst, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gow, lan
Lord, Michael


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maclean, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gregory, Conal
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mans, Keith


Grist, lan
Marland, Paul


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin





Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Miller, Hal
Speed, Keith


Mills, lain
Speller, Tony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Squire, Robin


Monro, Sir Hector
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stern, Michael


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Stevens, Lewis


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Nelson, Anthony
Summerson, Hugo


Neubert, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, lan (Esher)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Page, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Paice, James
Thorne, Neil


Patnick, Irvine
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Pawsey, James
Tracey, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tredinnick, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trotter, Neville


Portillo, Michael
Twinn, Dr lan


Powell, William (Corby)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Raffan, Keith
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Redwood, John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Renton, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wheeler, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Richard
Wilshire, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

Question Accoudingly negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr Douglas Hogg.]

Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

Orders of the Day — RAF Search and Rescue (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]

Mr. Bill Walker: This Adjournment debate is about the Royal Air Force search and rescue operation in central Scotland, which means that it is really a debate about the search and rescue helicopters at Royal Air Force Leuchars, Fife.
Since June 1955, there has been a permanent 24-hour-a-day search and rescue helicopter standing by at RAF Leuchars. The bright yellow helicopter of B flight of No. 22 Squadron is easily the best-loved, and most highly regarded and respected, of the flying machines that can be seen around the east coast of central and north-east Scotland. The yellow helicopter brings hope and confidence to all who may find themselves in peril in the freezing cold and the cruel North sea, or who may be lost or injured in the mountains of central and northern Scotland.
The skill, courage and professionalism of the helicopter crews have become a legend. The people of my constituency who are subjected daily to the noise of the low fast jets know that from RAF Leuchars they have a lifeline in the search and rescue helicopters. They know that in times of emergency, whether it is injured climbers or walkers, skiers or residents of the remote glens who are in need of hospitalisation, a Leuchars helicopter will be scrambled within 15 minutes. That is important. Response time for rescues in the North sea and in the mountains of Scotland can mean the difference between survival and death.
The helicopters of 22 Squadron RAF Leuchars have made a total of 2,049 rescue flights. In 1987, 104 of the flights were to assist the civil population. Ten were for military purposes. Ninety-five people were rescued and only 10 were found to be dead. Time is of the essence in rescues. Longer flight times will increase the risk and reduce the chances of survival. So far this year the Leuchars helicopters have carried out 68 rescue missions, of which 18 were carried out at night.
Leuchars is the main air defence base of the northern United Kingdom. The pilots and navigators who fly the Phantoms are highly skilled and expensively trained professional aviators. It costs £8 million to train a pilot to the required standard to fly Phantoms. Soon the Phantoms will be replaced by the Tornado F3, whose pilots will be the elite of fighter pilots. I submit that the helicopters will only have to rescue alive one pilot a year from the freezing North sea and from sub-zero mountain temperatures to justify the cost of maintaining the helicopter operation.
I remind the House that in the winter and early spring during the period of the easterly gales a helicopter from Prestwick or from Lossiemouth, flying into the teeth of the gale, would take a long time to reach the east coast. A helicopter from Boulmer would take 47 minutes in still air. We all know that emergencies never occur in still air— quite the opposite. Most emergencies happen when weather conditions are at the margins for operations, so response time is increased.
In March 1988 three crewmen were rescued by a Leuchars helicopter when their motor vessel went aground off Montrose. The water temperature at the time was so low that the rescue services knew that they had to complete

the evacuation beforethe men succumbed to the cold. If the helicopter had been unable to lift off the three men, a breeches buoy was the only very risky possible alternative. Fortunately, the RAF Leuchars helicopter flying at night arrived in time and executed the rescue. A helicopter from Prestwick or Boulmer would not have arrived in time.
Ever since the news that Leuchars may lose its search and rescue helicopters became known, the people of Scotland have expressed their concern. Aviators, both service and civil, professional seamen, and fishermen, amateur sailors of all kinds, skiers, mountaineers and hill walkers, as well as police, coastguards, lifeboat men and ambulance men and mountain rescue teams have written, phoned or spoken to their respective Members of Parliament and councillors. There can be few issues that have united so many different groups. All of them are of the view that RAF Leuchars must retain its search and rescue helicopters.
As an aviator, I have flown for a large number of hours, over many years, throughout the Highlands and the east coast of Scotland in the knowledge that the Leuchars search and rescue helicopters were on a 15-minute alert and that if I were unfortunate enough to get into difficulties the yellow helicopter would quickly arrive.
I do not wish in this debate to be seen to be trying to second-guess the highly competent and capable people who have studied the deployment package of military search and rescue helicopters. However, I must draw attention to the experience that was obtained in Korea, where it was discovered that response time could make the difference between recovering highly skilled air crew alive or arriving to find them dead. Water and mountain conditions in Korea can be very like the conditions of Scotland in the winter.
I am also unable to see the logic of having a clutch of Sea King units within 90 nautical miles of each other in the north-east of England when, if Leuchars is to lose its search and rescue helicopters, there will be a gap of 200 nautical miles between Boulmer and Lossiemouth. The Tay estuary is notorious for is treacherous sandbanks. Often surface ships cannot operate or carry out rescues. More than one lifeboat has been lost at the bar of the Tay. In such conditions the only hope of rescue is the helicopter from RAF Leuchars.
I cannot believe that it is wise to have the major northern United Kingdom air defence base within this 200 nautical mile search and rescue helicopter gap. I remind my hon. Friend that the main runway at Leuchars points out towards the Tay estuary, and also that many of the malfunctions of systems or errors of judgment occur during take-off and landing. Ahead of the runway is the treacherous Tay estuary. I leave my hon. Friend to ponder on that.
I wish to thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy in this matter. I should also like to thank him for his letters of assurance and for arranging the visit to RAF Leuchars for me and for the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). We were able to visit the helicopter facilities and see the superb new hangar and the crew accommodation, much of which was paid for by NATO, which obviously appreciates the work carried out by B flight crews and helicopters. I should also like to place on record my thanks for the way in which Group Captain Tony Bagnell and the members of 22 Squadron made our visit so interesting and instructive. I should also like to


thank them for the traditional RAF hospitality extended to us. I leave it to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East to say what was interesting about that.
I also thank my hon. Friend for his letter, dated today, which I received today, which assured me that no final decisions have been taken. I do not expect my hon. Friend to give the final decision this evening, but I hope that he will take back to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to his Department the genuine concern that has been so clearly articulated and reported in the Scottish media. In particular, I hope that he will note the many well-informed articles which have appeared in the Dundee Courier and a number of other publications.
I conclude by reminding my hon. Friend of the public relations aspect of the search and rescue helicopters. The RAF could not buy such massively good and positive public relations. If it spent all the money it spends on the helicopters it could not get such superb public relations. The image of the modern Air Force is of low, fast, noisy jets. Many of my constituents have to put up with that week in and week out. They do so because they are reminded by me and others that the yellow, life-saving search and rescue helicopters come from the same Air Force and often from the same airfield. If we lose the search and rescue helicopters at Leuchars and the response time is inevitably increased, the number of complaints will increase and it will be increasingly difficult for my hon. Friend to justify RAF expenditure. In a world of tightening budgets, any savings would be minute compared with the damage that could result from the loss of the good public relations generated by the yellow helicopters of B flight, 22 Squadron at RAF Leuchars.

Sir Hector Monro: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for allowing me two or three minutes in this important debate to support him and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) in his plea for the retention of the search and rescue capability at RAF Leuchars. It amazes me that it was ever in doubt, and I am sure that the final decision will be made in favour of that outstanding unit, coupled with the other Scottish unit at Lossiemouth with which I have much closer Royal Auxiliary Air Force connection.
During the war, during the many hours of maritime reconnaissance flying, we would have loved to have thought a search and rescue helicopter squadron was not far away. Of course they were not available. We hoped, if we were lucky, to be picked up by a Walrus, which had the hazardous operation of landing in the open sea. Subsequently, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force was still awaiting the arrival of helicopter squadrons for search and rescue.
Now that they have existed for many years, and, as my hon. Friend said, they have given outstanding service to the Royal Air Force, and to Scotland generally in terms of mountain rescue and other hazardous "outward bound" activities that happen in our country, the pilots, navigators and air crew of the squadrons involved deserve the highest praise from the Scottish people and from the United Kingdom.
I cannot believe that it is seriously contemplated that the squadron should move from Leuchars, leaving an enormous gap from Lossiemouth to the English coast. The

squadron has a tremendous reputation for fine work, which will stand it in good stead during the deliberations in the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the decision will be to keep the squadron and search and rescue at Leuchars.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief speech.
I count myself highly privileged to represent the constituency which contains a military air base of such significance as RAF Leuchars. Relations between the military personnel and the community have always been extremely good. A measure of that was the tremendous hospitality which was extended to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and me on Sunday. It happened to be my birthday. The commanding officer, having discovered the fact, caused it to be celebrated in an entirely appropriate way, but one which did not cause any of us who partook of the hospitality to be at any risk of breaking the law.
The whole community supports the campaign. The district council, the regional council, all political parties and all interests, political or otherwise, are determined to do their utmost to ensure that the search and rescue capability remains at RAF Leuchars.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: In his fight to save this very important facility, is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that he has the support of the people of Angus, East, the fishermen of Arbroath, the lifeboatmen of Montrose, who have contacted me, and those who use the sea or the mountains for leisure or work? I hope that the Minister notices the cross-party and cross-constituency support for this important facility.

Mr. Campbell: I am happy to note that support. It is reminiscent of the support that already exists in my constituency.
I am sure that the Minister will not mind my saying that it is unfortunate that certain information suggesting that a decision had been taken has emerged in the past few weeks. I have the Minister's assurance that no decision has been taken at ministerial level. I am happy to accept that assurance, but I am sure that the Minister agrees that the fact that certain information was freely discussed in the constituency—to the effect that a decision had been taken —was bad for the morale of the crews and their families, and disturbing for the community.
More than 2,000 missions have been flown since the search and rescue facility was established at RAF Leuchars, and more than 2,000 people have been rescued. Some 90 per cent. of those rescued have been civilians. Fishing, which is an important part of the economy of Fife, North-East, relies to a considerable extent on the fact that the Leuchars facility is available. Those who go to sea to fish have confidence in the fact that a proven service is available to them in the unhappy event of their finding themselves in difficulty. There is a tradition of co-operation between the search and rescue facility and the lifeboat at Anstruther and, no doubt, other nearby stations.
As might be expected, I have had many letters from people who have an interest in this matter, but one has touched me more than all the others. It came from a constituent who told me that, but for the Wessex helicopters at RAF Leuchars, he would not be around to


write the letter and be part of the campaign to retain the facility. He had suffered a severe medical complaint, and was taken at short notice to Edinburgh where more sophisticated medical facilities were available.
There is little doubt that the contribution made by Leuchars goes far beyond the military requirements and it is one that the civilian population value extremely highly. That service does the RAF great credit and it gives it a profile that all the low flying ever practised could never achieve. Quite simply, that base is regarded as part of the community. I hope that no ministerial decision will be taken that will deprive the community of that most important and significant service.

Mr. John McAllion: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for allowing me the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate and to lend my support to the campaign that is being waged by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) to try to stave off any decision to withdraw the sea and air rescue service at Leuchars.
The threat to safety as a result of such withdrawal was brought home to me today when I received a copy of a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Michael Silvers of West Ferry, Dundee. He wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland on behalf of the Tay pilots to express their concern about the threat to safety that would ensue from such a decision. He said:
Should help have to come from Boulmer or some other base there would be too big a delay to help anyone in grave danger, perhaps shipwrecked or immersed in winter temperature seawater. In fact only last Friday all hands were removed from a grounded tug at the river mouth.
We also feel that far-away crews could not have enough local knowledge to do rescue work to an acceptable standard.
Mr. Silvers and the Tay pilots know what they are talking about. I hope that the Minister will consider their views when he replies.
There is a strong case in Dundee for retaining the services at Leuchars. The Broughty Ferry lifeboat has a long, distinguished and heroic record of saving lives along the north-east coast of Scotland—a record that has been achieved at the cost of great loss of life among the crew of that lifeboat. In the past 30 years that lifeboat has worked in close relationship with the helicopter service at Leuchars. The helicopters and lifeboats often complement each other when they take part in combined operations to save stranded boat crews in peril at sea. In the future I believe that there will be an expanded scope for such operations.
The Royal Tay yacht club at Broughty Ferry in Dundee continues to prosper and that means that there will be a continued demand for the protective cover that is provided by Leuchars. The hon. Member for Tayside, North has already said that such cover is especially needed, given the dangerous nature of the waters in the Tay estuary.
The growing part that is played by tourism in the local economy of Dundee means that more and more holiday-makers will be attracted to the area. They will take part in water sports, hill walking, climbing and skiing and, therefore, there will be an increased need for the sea and air rescue service operation out of Leuchars.
All the evidence points towards a continuing and growing need for the rescue service at Leuchars. The spectrum of local opinion supports the retention of the service. I believe that it would be sheer folly and an act of supreme irresponsibility if the Government withdrew for financial reasons a service that has made a valued and effective contribution to civilian safety in the north-east of Scotland.
If the Minister had been considering such a move I am sure that, having listened to the unanimity of opinion across all political parties and the entire community of the north-east of Scotland in support of the service, he will think again.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): This has been a well-attended Adjournment debate and it is an obvious indication of the high regard that the House has for the search and rescue service provided by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. It also highlights the specific concern there is about Scotland. I have listened carefully to the debate and I am sure that not only my ministerial colleagues, but officials from the Ministry of Defence will study the record of the proceedings tonight.
I shall respond briefly to some of the points raised in the debate. It is a rather strange and refreshing experience to wind up an Adjournment debate by seeking to answer some of the points raised.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for his interest in the subject and for his support for the RAF search and rescue services and for mountain rescue services provided by six teams in the United Kingdom. We should not forget the mountain rescue teams which consist of volunteers. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North referred to the new hangar at RAF Leuchars. It is NATO-funded but I should put on record the fact that the excellent hangar and office facilities could well be used for a wide variety of tasks. I am not suggesting that it will be or would be but I felt that I should respond specifically to that point.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) referred to speculation within the RAF about the possible closure of the search and rescue flight —the two Wessex helicopters at RAF Leuchars. For the sake of the record, I repeat the fact that there was speculation about that within the RAF. I regret that it happened. No decisions have yet been made on the deployment of search and rescue helicopters in Scotland and the west coast of England. We have announced the new deployment for the east and south coasts of England. Any decisions for Scotland will be taken by Ministers alone, and no such decision has yet been taken. Therefore, the speculation to which the hon. and learned Member referred is nothing more than that. I regret the inconvenience and alarm that that caused.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East also raised the question of delay as did the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). If one had search and rescue facilities all round the coast at 15, 20 or 25-mile intervals, the delay in getting any aircraft, whether a Sea King or Wessex, to anyone in difficulties in the water or on land would be minimal. However, unfortunately, we cannot provide that sort of service. There will inevitably be some delay for a helicopter coming from Lossiemouth,


Leuchars, Prestwick or wherever to a particular incident. Therefore, because the deployment of the search and rescue helicopters is primarily for military purposes, we try to ensure that we meet, as a minimum, the criteria laid down by the helicopter coverage group, which reports to the Department of Transport. Therefore, in any redeployment of our facilities—this was the case with the east and south coast redeployments we announced to the House several weeks ago—we have to consult comprehensively the Department of Transport. The Department made a decision about augmenting the military cover at Lee-on-Solent.
I remind the House that many RAF stations do not have helicopter search and rescue facilities. Even some of the RAF stations close to the coast do not have such facilities. Several in East Anglia suggest themselves immediately. Ideally, we would have such helicopters at all stations but, obviously, we cannot.
The review that is still in process—Ministers have yet to reach a decision—will take account of the factors that have been mentioned in the debate and the written representations received. I am well aware of the interest of the fisheries industries, the local authorities and recreational interests, including mountain rescue.
I take the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North and Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about low flying. It is something about which the public is concerned. The extent to which search and rescue facilities are provided in a particular region or country to a certain extent militates against the criticisms of low flying.
I am also grateful for having been reminded that sea survival in the north of Scotland is perhaps a little less than off the Welsh coast in terms of the impact on military or civilian casualties. The purpose of the fundamental review that is under way is to improve helicopter coverage. We have at our disposal the dedicated personnel of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy—do not let us forget the Royal Navy—and the combination of Sea King and Wessex aircraft. The new Sea Kings arriving for service with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force enable us to augment the service, particularly with night-time cover.
This has been a helpful debate. Everyone has praised search and rescue. When our decisions are announced I hope that the House will agree that coverage of this excellent service will have been enhanced.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Two o'clock.